Faden v. Satterlee Stephens Burke & Burke, LLP

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Faden v. Satterlee Stephens Burke & Burke, LLP

52 A.D.3d 652, 858 N.Y.S.2d 914

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

DecidedJune 17, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 52 A.D.3d 652 (Faden v. Satterlee Stephens Burke & Burke, LLP) 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

Faden v. Satterlee Stephens Burke & Burke, LLP, 52 A.D.3d 652, 858 N.Y.S.2d 914 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to [653]*653recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Palmieri, J.), dated May 22, 2007, which granted the defendants’ motion, inter alia, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants were entitled to dismissal of the complaint based upon documentary evidence that conclusively established a defense to the action (see CPLR 3211 [a] [1]; Malarkey v Piel, 7 AD3d 681 [2004]). The defendants submitted a stockholders’ agreement signed by the plaintiff which conclusively disposed of his legal malpractice claim (see Bishop v Maurer, 33 AD3d 497, 499 [2006], affd 9 NY3d 910 [2007]; Beattie v Brown & Wood, 243 AD2d 395 [1997]; Lunney & Crocco v Wolfe, 243 AD2d 348 [1997]). Miller, J.P, Dillon, Balkin and Chambers, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to [653]*653recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Palmieri, J.), dated May 22, 2007, which granted the defendants’ motion, inter alia, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants were entitled to dismissal of the complaint based upon documentary evidence that conclusively established a defense to the action (see CPLR 3211 [a] [1]; Malarkey v Piel, 7 AD3d 681 [2004]). The defendants submitted a stockholders’ agreement signed by the plaintiff which conclusively disposed of his legal malpractice claim (see Bishop v Maurer, 33 AD3d 497, 499 [2006], affd 9 NY3d 910 [2007]; Beattie v Brown & Wood, 243 AD2d 395 [1997]; Lunney & Crocco v Wolfe, 243 AD2d 348 [1997]). Miller, J.P, Dillon, Balkin and Chambers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.3d 652, 858 N.Y.S.2d 914, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/faden-v-satterlee-stephens-burke-burke-llp-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack