Cole v. Wertheimer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cole v. Wertheimer

99 A.D.2d 729, 472 N.Y.S.2d 354, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17083

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

DecidedFebruary 23, 1984

StatusPublished

This text of 99 A.D.2d 729 (Cole v. Wertheimer) 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

Cole v. Wertheimer, 99 A.D.2d 729, 472 N.Y.S.2d 354, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17083 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Arthur Blyn, J.), entered February 18,1983 denying the motion of defendants Wertheimer and Friedman to dismiss the complaint unanimously affirmed, without costs. While we affirm the determinations of Special Term in this legal malpractice action, we do so simply because the complaint, on its face presents justiciable issues (see Rovello v Orofino Realty Co., 40 NY2d 633; Guggenheim-er v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d 268); and Special Term did not elect to treat the [730]*730motion as one for summary judgment by invoking the procedure outlined in CPLR 3211 (subd [c]). Our holding is not to be construed as indicating, in any way, that we have passed on the continuance or termination of the attorney-client relationship. Determination of that issue is best deferred to a motion for summary judgment or trial. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Sandler, Silverman and Bloom, JJ.

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

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Arthur Blyn, J.), entered February 18,1983 denying the motion of defendants Wertheimer and Friedman to dismiss the complaint unanimously affirmed, without costs. While we affirm the determinations of Special Term in this legal malpractice action, we do so simply because the complaint, on its face presents justiciable issues (see Rovello v Orofino Realty Co., 40 NY2d 633; Guggenheim-er v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d 268); and Special Term did not elect to treat the [730]*730motion as one for summary judgment by invoking the procedure outlined in CPLR 3211 (subd [c]). Our holding is not to be construed as indicating, in any way, that we have passed on the continuance or termination of the attorney-client relationship. Determination of that issue is best deferred to a motion for summary judgment or trial. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Sandler, Silverman and Bloom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 A.D.2d 729, 472 N.Y.S.2d 354, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17083, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cole-v-wertheimer-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack