Demo v. Badie

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Demo v. Badie

14 A.D.3d 436, 787 N.Y.S.2d 874, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 490

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

DecidedJanuary 25, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 14 A.D.3d 436 (Demo v. Badie) 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

Demo v. Badie, 14 A.D.3d 436, 787 N.Y.S.2d 874, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 490 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, [437]*437J.), entered October 16, 2003, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, and order, same court and Justice, entered May 10, 2004, which, to the extent appealed from, granted plaintiffs motion for reargument and adhered to the initial determination, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff fails to make out a claim for legal malpractice. Defendants’ conduct was not a “but for” cause of the claimed losses (Davis v Klein, 88 NY2d 1008 [1996]). Plaintiff failed to provide a nonconclusory reason—i.e., other than her subjective dissatisfaction with its terms—for failing to abide by the agreement with her sister, which would have removed the legal impediment to her conveyance of the jointly held property. Viewing the matter in this light, it is unnecessary for us to reach the other grounds advanced for affirmance. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Marlow and Nardelli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, [437]*437J.), entered October 16, 2003, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, and order, same court and Justice, entered May 10, 2004, which, to the extent appealed from, granted plaintiffs motion for reargument and adhered to the initial determination, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff fails to make out a claim for legal malpractice. Defendants’ conduct was not a “but for” cause of the claimed losses (Davis v Klein, 88 NY2d 1008 [1996]). Plaintiff failed to provide a nonconclusory reason—i.e., other than her subjective dissatisfaction with its terms—for failing to abide by the agreement with her sister, which would have removed the legal impediment to her conveyance of the jointly held property. Viewing the matter in this light, it is unnecessary for us to reach the other grounds advanced for affirmance. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Marlow and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 A.D.3d 436, 787 N.Y.S.2d 874, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 490, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/demo-v-badie-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack