Cepeda v. Trolman & Glaser

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cepeda v. Trolman & Glaser

259 A.D.2d 355, 687 N.Y.S.2d 67, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2743

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

DecidedMarch 18, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 259 A.D.2d 355 (Cepeda v. Trolman & Glaser) 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

Cepeda v. Trolman & Glaser, 259 A.D.2d 355, 687 N.Y.S.2d 67, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2743 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered on or about June 12, 1998, which denied defendants-appellants’ motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss plaintiffs legal malpractice action in its entirety, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendants-appellants dismissing the complaint as against them.

Defendants-appellants’ motion for summary judgment should have been granted because plaintiffs assertions in opposition to summary judgment failed to raise a triable issue of material fact (Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). The record shows that each of plaintiffs assertions was speculative or unsubstantiated, or referred to an inconsequential legal error (see, Luniewski v Zeitlin, 188 AD2d 642, 643; Geraci v Bauman, Greene & Kunkis, 171 AD2d 454, appeal dismissed 78 NY2d 907). In any case, he failed to establish, prima facie, that his attorney was negligent, that the negligence was the proximate cause of the loss allegedly sustained, that he sustained actual damages, and that but for the alleged negligence and malpractice of his attorney, he could have achieved a better result in the underlying action (Geraci v Bauman, Greene & Kunkis, supra; Luniewski v Zeitlin, supra). Concur — Williams, J. P., Wallach, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered on or about June 12, 1998, which denied defendants-appellants’ motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss plaintiffs legal malpractice action in its entirety, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendants-appellants dismissing the complaint as against them.

Defendants-appellants’ motion for summary judgment should have been granted because plaintiffs assertions in opposition to summary judgment failed to raise a triable issue of material fact (Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). The record shows that each of plaintiffs assertions was speculative or unsubstantiated, or referred to an inconsequential legal error (see, Luniewski v Zeitlin, 188 AD2d 642, 643; Geraci v Bauman, Greene & Kunkis, 171 AD2d 454, appeal dismissed 78 NY2d 907). In any case, he failed to establish, prima facie, that his attorney was negligent, that the negligence was the proximate cause of the loss allegedly sustained, that he sustained actual damages, and that but for the alleged negligence and malpractice of his attorney, he could have achieved a better result in the underlying action (Geraci v Bauman, Greene & Kunkis, supra; Luniewski v Zeitlin, supra). Concur — Williams, J. P., Wallach, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 355, 687 N.Y.S.2d 67, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2743, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cepeda-v-trolman-glaser-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack