Ditmars Real Estate Consultants, Inc. v. Ferlisi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ditmars Real Estate Consultants, Inc. v. Ferlisi

7 A.D.3d 481, 775 N.Y.S.2d 879, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6419

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

DecidedMay 3, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 7 A.D.3d 481 (Ditmars Real Estate Consultants, Inc. v. Ferlisi) 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

Ditmars Real Estate Consultants, Inc. v. Ferlisi, 7 A.D.3d 481, 775 N.Y.S.2d 879, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6419 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.), dated July 1, 2003, as granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied its cross motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and substituting therefor a provision denying that motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

There are issues of fact requiring the denial of summary judgment. Prudenti, P.J., Ritter, H. Miller and Adams, 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 plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.), dated July 1, 2003, as granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied its cross motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and substituting therefor a provision denying that motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

There are issues of fact requiring the denial of summary judgment. Prudenti, P.J., Ritter, H. Miller and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A.D.3d 481, 775 N.Y.S.2d 879, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6419, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ditmars-real-estate-consultants-inc-v-ferlisi-nyappdiv-2004.