Chalpin v. Caro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chalpin v. Caro

265 A.D.2d 155, 696 N.Y.S.2d 34, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9792

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

DecidedOctober 5, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 265 A.D.2d 155 (Chalpin v. Caro) 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

Chalpin v. Caro, 265 A.D.2d 155, 696 N.Y.S.2d 34, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9792 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered September 25, 1998, which granted defendants’ motion dismissing the complaint on the ground of res judicata, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The Federal District Court’s determination fixing the value of defendants’ legal services in the underlying action in which defendants were retained by plaintiffs necessarily decided that there was no legal malpractice, and the interposition of such a claim is subsequently barred by the doctrine of res judicata (see, Summit Solomon & Feldesman v Matalon, 216 AD2d 91, 92, lv denied 86 NY2d 711). Given that the District Court had ancillary jurisdiction to decide the value of defendants’ services in the underlying action (see, Cluett, Peabody & Co. v CPC Acquisition Co., 863 F2d 251, 256), it necessarily had ancillary jurisdiction to decide whether defendants committed any malpractice in that action. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Williams, Wallach, Lerner and Friedman, 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 September 25, 1998, which granted defendants’ motion dismissing the complaint on the ground of res judicata, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The Federal District Court’s determination fixing the value of defendants’ legal services in the underlying action in which defendants were retained by plaintiffs necessarily decided that there was no legal malpractice, and the interposition of such a claim is subsequently barred by the doctrine of res judicata (see, Summit Solomon & Feldesman v Matalon, 216 AD2d 91, 92, lv denied 86 NY2d 711). Given that the District Court had ancillary jurisdiction to decide the value of defendants’ services in the underlying action (see, Cluett, Peabody & Co. v CPC Acquisition Co., 863 F2d 251, 256), it necessarily had ancillary jurisdiction to decide whether defendants committed any malpractice in that action. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Williams, Wallach, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D.2d 155, 696 N.Y.S.2d 34, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9792, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chalpin-v-caro-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack