Estate of Steinberg v. Harmon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Estate of Steinberg v. Harmon

259 A.D.2d 318, 686 N.Y.S.2d 423, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2418

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

DecidedMarch 11, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 259 A.D.2d 318 (Estate of Steinberg v. Harmon) 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

Estate of Steinberg v. Harmon, 259 A.D.2d 318, 686 N.Y.S.2d 423, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2418 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Kapnick, J.), entered April 3, 1998, which, in an action for legal malpractice and violation of Judiciary Law § 487, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff cannot state a cause of action for legal malpractice based solely on defendant’s disqualification for an alleged conflict of interest in a separate litigation (see, Lavanant v General Acc. Ins. Co., 212 AD2d 450; Mills v Pappas, 174 AD2d 780, 782, lv denied 78 NY2d 1121, cert denied 504 US 971). Plaintiff does not show any damages attributable to defendant’s alleged ethical breach, other than the attorney’s fees it incurred in litigating defendant’s disqualification, the first application for which was denied. In any event, as the motion court noted, the request for fees, if recoverable, should have been raised in the proceeding in which the disqualification occurred. Nor does plaintiff allege facts showing “ ‘a chronic, extreme pattern of legal delinquency’ ” such as would support a cause of action under Judiciary Law § 487 (Gonzalez v Gordon, 233 AD2d 191, lv denied 90 NY2d 802). Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Rubin, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Kapnick, J.), entered April 3, 1998, which, in an action for legal malpractice and violation of Judiciary Law § 487, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff cannot state a cause of action for legal malpractice based solely on defendant’s disqualification for an alleged conflict of interest in a separate litigation (see, Lavanant v General Acc. Ins. Co., 212 AD2d 450; Mills v Pappas, 174 AD2d 780, 782, lv denied 78 NY2d 1121, cert denied 504 US 971). Plaintiff does not show any damages attributable to defendant’s alleged ethical breach, other than the attorney’s fees it incurred in litigating defendant’s disqualification, the first application for which was denied. In any event, as the motion court noted, the request for fees, if recoverable, should have been raised in the proceeding in which the disqualification occurred. Nor does plaintiff allege facts showing “ ‘a chronic, extreme pattern of legal delinquency’ ” such as would support a cause of action under Judiciary Law § 487 (Gonzalez v Gordon, 233 AD2d 191, lv denied 90 NY2d 802). Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Rubin, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 318, 686 N.Y.S.2d 423, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2418, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estate-of-steinberg-v-harmon-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack