Evangelista v. Slatt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Evangelista v. Slatt

295 A.D.2d 156, 743 N.Y.S.2d 274, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5914

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

DecidedJune 11, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 295 A.D.2d 156 (Evangelista v. Slatt) 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

Evangelista v. Slatt, 295 A.D.2d 156, 743 N.Y.S.2d 274, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5914 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered December 10, 2001, which, in an action for legal malpractice based on defendant attorneys’ alleged failure to proceed with an inquest or otherwise prosecute a default judgment in favor of plaintiff and against nonparty appellant, denied nonparty appellant’s motion to quash a subpoena served on him by defendant attorneys seeking information about his outstanding obligations to plaintiff and overall assets, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Any judgment herein cannot exceed “the amount that ‘could or would have been collected’ in the underlying action” (McKenna v Forsyth & Forsyth, 280 AD2d 79, 82). Therefore, any payments or other transfers of value that appellant may have made in satisfaction of the liabilities underlying the default judgment, as well as appellant’s ability to satisfy any such liabilities still outstanding, are material and necessary to the defense of this action. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Buckley, Sullivan and Marlow, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered December 10, 2001, which, in an action for legal malpractice based on defendant attorneys’ alleged failure to proceed with an inquest or otherwise prosecute a default judgment in favor of plaintiff and against nonparty appellant, denied nonparty appellant’s motion to quash a subpoena served on him by defendant attorneys seeking information about his outstanding obligations to plaintiff and overall assets, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Any judgment herein cannot exceed “the amount that ‘could or would have been collected’ in the underlying action” (McKenna v Forsyth & Forsyth, 280 AD2d 79, 82). Therefore, any payments or other transfers of value that appellant may have made in satisfaction of the liabilities underlying the default judgment, as well as appellant’s ability to satisfy any such liabilities still outstanding, are material and necessary to the defense of this action. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Buckley, Sullivan and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 156, 743 N.Y.S.2d 274, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5914, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/evangelista-v-slatt-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack