Coccia v. Liotti

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Coccia v. Liotti

70 A.D.3d 747, 892 N.Y.S.2d 913

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

DecidedFebruary 9, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 70 A.D.3d 747 (Coccia v. Liotti) 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

Coccia v. Liotti, 70 A.D.3d 747, 892 N.Y.S.2d 913 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for legal malpractice, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lally, J.), entered September 13, 2007, as denied those branches of his cross motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as the order appealed from was superseded by two orders of the same court entered May 5, 2008, and July 9, 2008, respectively, both made, in effect, upon renewal (see Coccia v Liotti, 70 AD3d 747 [2010] [decided herewith]).

We decline the plaintiffs request to impose sanctions against the defendant in connection with this appeal (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1). Rivera, J.P., Dillon, Belen and Roman, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for legal malpractice, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lally, J.), entered September 13, 2007, as denied those branches of his cross motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as the order appealed from was superseded by two orders of the same court entered May 5, 2008, and July 9, 2008, respectively, both made, in effect, upon renewal (see Coccia v Liotti, 70 AD3d 747 [2010] [decided herewith]).

We decline the plaintiffs request to impose sanctions against the defendant in connection with this appeal (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1). Rivera, J.P., Dillon, Belen and Roman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 A.D.3d 747, 892 N.Y.S.2d 913, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coccia-v-liotti-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack