Coleman v. Fox Horan & Camerini, L. L. P.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Coleman v. Fox Horan & Camerini, L. L. P.

274 A.D.2d 308, 711 N.Y.S.2d 723, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7580

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 6, 2000·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Beverly Cohen, J.), entered [309] May 26, 1999, dismissing the complaint for legal malpractice and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered on or about May 6, 1999, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from the aforesaid May 6, 1999 order, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the ensuing judgment.

Assuming that defendant attorneys breached their duty to disclose a conflict of interest with plaintiff client, plaintiff’s claims against them and their firm for malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty were nonetheless properly dismissed since plaintiff failed sufficiently to set forth the manner in which the alleged breach caused him to sustain damages (see, Franklin v Winard, 199 AD2d 220).

We have reviewed plaintiff’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Rubin, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Beverly Cohen, J.), entered [309] May 26, 1999, dismissing the complaint for legal malpractice and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered on or about May 6, 1999, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from the aforesaid May 6, 1999 order, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the ensuing judgment.

Assuming that defendant attorneys breached their duty to disclose a conflict of interest with plaintiff client, plaintiff’s claims against them and their firm for malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty were nonetheless properly dismissed since plaintiff failed sufficiently to set forth the manner in which the alleged breach caused him to sustain damages (see, Franklin v Winard, 199 AD2d 220).

We have reviewed plaintiff’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Rubin, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

Coleman v. Fox Horan & Camerini, L. L. P., 274 A.D.2d 308, 711 N.Y.S.2d 723, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7580 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

274 A.D.2d 308 (Coleman v. Fox Horan & Camerini, L. L. P.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related