Cohen v. Law Offices of Leonard & Shapiro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cohen v. Law Offices of Leonard & Shapiro

18 A.D.3d 219, 793 N.Y.S.2d 764, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4743

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

DecidedMay 3, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 18 A.D.3d 219 (Cohen v. Law Offices of Leonard & Shapiro) 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

Cohen v. Law Offices of Leonard & Shapiro, 18 A.D.3d 219, 793 N.Y.S.2d 764, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4743 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

[220]*220Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara R Kapnick, J.), entered March 19, 2004, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and granted defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiffs failed to establish that but for counsel’s alleged malpractice, they would have prevailed on appeal and would not have incurred damages upon remand to the federal District Court. Where legal malpractice is alleged, the “failure to establish proximate cause requires dismissal regardless of whether negligence is established” (Russo v Feder.; Kaszovitz, Isaacson, Weber, Skala & Bass, 301 AD2d 63, 67 [2002]). Plaintiffs also failed to establish a chronic or extreme pattern of legal delinquency that would warrant civil relief and the imposition of treble damages pursuant to Judiciary Law § 487 (Markard v Bloom, 4 AD3d 128 [2004], lv denied 2 NY3d 706 [2004]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sullivan, Ellerin, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

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

[220]*220Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara R Kapnick, J.), entered March 19, 2004, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and granted defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiffs failed to establish that but for counsel’s alleged malpractice, they would have prevailed on appeal and would not have incurred damages upon remand to the federal District Court. Where legal malpractice is alleged, the “failure to establish proximate cause requires dismissal regardless of whether negligence is established” (Russo v Feder.; Kaszovitz, Isaacson, Weber, Skala & Bass, 301 AD2d 63, 67 [2002]). Plaintiffs also failed to establish a chronic or extreme pattern of legal delinquency that would warrant civil relief and the imposition of treble damages pursuant to Judiciary Law § 487 (Markard v Bloom, 4 AD3d 128 [2004], lv denied 2 NY3d 706 [2004]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sullivan, Ellerin, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.3d 219, 793 N.Y.S.2d 764, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4743, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cohen-v-law-offices-of-leonard-shapiro-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack