Escoffier v. Goldberg, Scudieri & Lindenberg, P.C.

69 Misc. 3d 131(A), 2020 NY Slip Op 51167(U)

• Court: Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
• Decided: October 5, 2020
• Docket: 570132/20
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Escoffier v Goldberg, Scudieri & Lindenberg, P.C. (2020 NY Slip Op 51167(U)) [*1]

Escoffier v Goldberg, Scudieri & Lindenberg, P.C.

2020 NY Slip Op 51167(U) [69 Misc 3d 131(A)]

Decided on October 5, 2020

Appellate Term, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on October 5, 2020

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Edmead, P.J., Cooper, Higgitt, JJ.
570132/20

Dana Escoffier, as Administrator of the Estate of Lovey Branham, Plaintiff-Appellant,

against

Goldberg, Scudieri and Lindenberg, P.C., Defendant-Respondent.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Small Claims Part of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Debra Rose Samuels, J.), entered July 24, 2018, which granted defendant's motion to dismiss the action at the close of plaintiff's case.

Per Curiam.

Judgment (Debra Rose Samuels, J.), entered July 24, 2018, affirmed, without costs.

The trial court correctly dismissed the action at the close of plaintiff's case. Even affording plaintiff every favorable inference that reasonably could be drawn from the evidence adduced at trial (see Szczerbiak v Pilat, 90 NY2d 553, 556 [1997]), we agree that he failed to establish a prima facie case of legal malpractice against defendant, a law firm that represented him as administrator of the estate of his deceased mother in a summary proceeding for unpaid maintenance arrears. The trial court considered and rejected the alleged instances of legal malpractice and the court's findings and conclusions are supported by the record. Thus, we find that the judgment provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (CCA 1804, 1807; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000], lv dismissed 95 NY2d 898 [2000]). The trial record does not support plaintiff's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by virtue of the manner in which the trial judge conducted the proceeding.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: October 5, 2020