Delfino v. Ulrich

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Delfino v. Ulrich

204 A.D.2d 511, 614 N.Y.S.2d 203, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5285

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

DecidedMay 16, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 204 A.D.2d 511 (Delfino v. Ulrich) 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

Delfino v. Ulrich, 204 A.D.2d 511, 614 N.Y.S.2d 203, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5285 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiffs appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Jiudice, J.), entered May 28, 1990, which granted the defen[512]*512dant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The plaintiffs’ notice of appeal from the decision of the same court, entered May 1, 1992, is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the order and judgment (see, CPLR 5520 [a]).

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment to the defendant and dismissed this action to recover damages for legal malpractice. The plaintiffs’ conclusory, undocumented assertions were insufficient to establish that they sustained damages premised upon the defendant’s alleged malpractice in connection with an option agreement for the purchase of certain real property (see, Kazakias v Bistricer, 180 AD2d 666; see also, Lauer v Rapp, 190 AD2d 778, 779; Murphy v Stein, 156 AD2d 546). Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiffs appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Jiudice, J.), entered May 28, 1990, which granted the defen[512]*512dant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The plaintiffs’ notice of appeal from the decision of the same court, entered May 1, 1992, is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the order and judgment (see, CPLR 5520 [a]).

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment to the defendant and dismissed this action to recover damages for legal malpractice. The plaintiffs’ conclusory, undocumented assertions were insufficient to establish that they sustained damages premised upon the defendant’s alleged malpractice in connection with an option agreement for the purchase of certain real property (see, Kazakias v Bistricer, 180 AD2d 666; see also, Lauer v Rapp, 190 AD2d 778, 779; Murphy v Stein, 156 AD2d 546). Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 A.D.2d 511, 614 N.Y.S.2d 203, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5285, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/delfino-v-ulrich-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack