Cahill v. Ryan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cahill v. Ryan

266 A.D.2d 75, 699 N.Y.S.2d 8, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11628

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 16, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 266 A.D.2d 75 (Cahill v. Ryan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cahill v. Ryan, 266 A.D.2d 75, 699 N.Y.S.2d 8, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11628 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louise Gruner Gans, J.), entered July 8, 1998, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Assuming arguendo that defendant attorney committed legal malpractice by advising plaintiff to invoke her Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, the record demonstrates that such malpractice was not a proximate cause of plaintiff’s harm and, accordingly, that plaintiff, herself an attorney, may not recover for it. It is manifest from the record that the plaintiff in the underlying civil securities fraud action would have pressed the allegedly injurious legal claims against plaintiff herein based on documentary proof obtained through discovery even if plaintiff herein had not invoked her Fifth Amendment right at her deposition (see, Levine v Lacher & Lovell-Taylor, 256 AD2d 147, 149). Concur — Williams, J. P., Mazzarelli, Rubin, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louise Gruner Gans, J.), entered July 8, 1998, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Assuming arguendo that defendant attorney committed legal malpractice by advising plaintiff to invoke her Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, the record demonstrates that such malpractice was not a proximate cause of plaintiff’s harm and, accordingly, that plaintiff, herself an attorney, may not recover for it. It is manifest from the record that the plaintiff in the underlying civil securities fraud action would have pressed the allegedly injurious legal claims against plaintiff herein based on documentary proof obtained through discovery even if plaintiff herein had not invoked her Fifth Amendment right at her deposition (see, Levine v Lacher & Lovell-Taylor, 256 AD2d 147, 149). Concur — Williams, J. P., Mazzarelli, Rubin, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 75, 699 N.Y.S.2d 8, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11628, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cahill-v-ryan-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack