Entelisano Agency, Inc. v. Felt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Entelisano Agency, Inc. v. Felt

135 A.D.2d 1096, 523 N.Y.S.2d 314, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52951

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

DecidedDecember 18, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 135 A.D.2d 1096 (Entelisano Agency, Inc. v. Felt) 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

Entelisano Agency, Inc. v. Felt, 135 A.D.2d 1096, 523 N.Y.S.2d 314, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52951 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict dismissing his claims of legal malpractice, plaintiff raises many issues, only one requiring comment. The trial court’s disallowance of testimony by plaintiffs expert regarding the legal standard of professional care was not error. As a general rule, an expert should be permitted to offer an opinion on an issue which involves professional knowledge or skill not within the range of ordinary training or intelligence (Selkowitz v County of Nassau, 45 NY2d 97, 102). Consistent with this rule, the court properly permitted plaintiffs expert to state his opinion that defendant’s conduct fell below the ordinary and reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of his profession (Grago v Robertson, 49 AD2d 645, 646). It is for the trial court to state the standard of reasonable professional care and it is for the jury to decide whether there was a deviation from such standard (PJI 2:152; Matter of Weinberg [Needleman], 226 App Div 3, affd 252 NY 622). The court’s ruling and charge properly permitted the jury to assess fairly plaintiff’s evidence. We have considered plaintiffs remaining claims and find them lacking in merit. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Lawton, J. — legal malpractice.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Boomer, Green and Davis, JJ.

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

— Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict dismissing his claims of legal malpractice, plaintiff raises many issues, only one requiring comment. The trial court’s disallowance of testimony by plaintiffs expert regarding the legal standard of professional care was not error. As a general rule, an expert should be permitted to offer an opinion on an issue which involves professional knowledge or skill not within the range of ordinary training or intelligence (Selkowitz v County of Nassau, 45 NY2d 97, 102). Consistent with this rule, the court properly permitted plaintiffs expert to state his opinion that defendant’s conduct fell below the ordinary and reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of his profession (Grago v Robertson, 49 AD2d 645, 646). It is for the trial court to state the standard of reasonable professional care and it is for the jury to decide whether there was a deviation from such standard (PJI 2:152; Matter of Weinberg [Needleman], 226 App Div 3, affd 252 NY 622). The court’s ruling and charge properly permitted the jury to assess fairly plaintiff’s evidence. We have considered plaintiffs remaining claims and find them lacking in merit. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Lawton, J. — legal malpractice.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Boomer, Green and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 A.D.2d 1096, 523 N.Y.S.2d 314, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52951, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/entelisano-agency-inc-v-felt-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack