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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 3, 2005·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

[220] Order, 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] Order, 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.

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

18 A.D.3d 219 (Cohen v. Law Offices of Leonard & Shapiro) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related