C.F.C. Realty Corp. v. Corpina

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

C.F.C. Realty Corp. v. Corpina

192 A.D.2d 474, 597 N.Y.S.2d 596, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4351

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

DecidedApril 27, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 192 A.D.2d 474 (C.F.C. Realty Corp. v. Corpina) 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

C.F.C. Realty Corp. v. Corpina, 192 A.D.2d 474, 597 N.Y.S.2d 596, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4351 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (David Levy, J.), entered on or about February 14, 1992, dismissing the complaint upon a jury verdict, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The trial court properly refused to submit the legal malpractice claim to the jury since it was not established that defendant law firm was ever retained. Even if the proof were sufficient in this regard, in view of the testimony of plaintiffs public adjuster that it was his responsibility to file plaintiffs proofs of loss, expert testimony would have been necessary to establish under what standard of care defendant should be [475]*475deemed responsible as well (compare, Butler v Brown, 180 AD2d 406, lv denied 80 NY2d 751; S & D Petroleum Co. v Tamsett, 144 AD2d 849). Concur — Carro, J. P., Wallach, Asch and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (David Levy, J.), entered on or about February 14, 1992, dismissing the complaint upon a jury verdict, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The trial court properly refused to submit the legal malpractice claim to the jury since it was not established that defendant law firm was ever retained. Even if the proof were sufficient in this regard, in view of the testimony of plaintiffs public adjuster that it was his responsibility to file plaintiffs proofs of loss, expert testimony would have been necessary to establish under what standard of care defendant should be [475]*475deemed responsible as well (compare, Butler v Brown, 180 AD2d 406, lv denied 80 NY2d 751; S & D Petroleum Co. v Tamsett, 144 AD2d 849). Concur — Carro, J. P., Wallach, Asch and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 A.D.2d 474, 597 N.Y.S.2d 596, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4351, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cfc-realty-corp-v-corpina-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack