Fleissler v. Bayroff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fleissler v. Bayroff

266 A.D.2d 34, 698 N.Y.S.2d 19, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11377

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

DecidedNovember 9, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 266 A.D.2d 34 (Fleissler v. Bayroff) 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

Fleissler v. Bayroff, 266 A.D.2d 34, 698 N.Y.S.2d 19, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11377 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Goodman, J.), entered December 2, 1998, after a nonjury trial, in defendant’s favor dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiffs’ cause of action for legal malpractice was properly dismissed on the grounds that plaintiffs failed to establish the existence of an attorney-client relationship with defendant, a fellow investor, with respect to the real estate transaction at issue (see, Sucese v Kirsch, 199 AD2d 718) and, in any event, failed to establish that defendant’s conduct fell below the ordinary standard of practice in the legal community (see, Thaler & Thaler v Gupta, 208 AD2d 1130, 1132). Nor do we perceive any reason to disturb the trial court’s conclusion that defendant made no contractual commitment to accompany the escrow agent to the bank (see, Public Serv. Mut. Ins. Co. v Hollander, 228 AD2d 283, 285, lv denied 88 NY2d 816). Because plaintiffs failed to establish that defendant owed them a duty, either as an attorney or by reason of a contractual undertaking, plaintiffs’ negligence and breach of contract claims were [35]*35properly dismissed. Plaintiffs’ additional claim in arguing this appeal, that defendant owed them a fiduciary duty, is improperly raised for the first time on appeal. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Lerner, Rubin and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Goodman, J.), entered December 2, 1998, after a nonjury trial, in defendant’s favor dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiffs’ cause of action for legal malpractice was properly dismissed on the grounds that plaintiffs failed to establish the existence of an attorney-client relationship with defendant, a fellow investor, with respect to the real estate transaction at issue (see, Sucese v Kirsch, 199 AD2d 718) and, in any event, failed to establish that defendant’s conduct fell below the ordinary standard of practice in the legal community (see, Thaler & Thaler v Gupta, 208 AD2d 1130, 1132). Nor do we perceive any reason to disturb the trial court’s conclusion that defendant made no contractual commitment to accompany the escrow agent to the bank (see, Public Serv. Mut. Ins. Co. v Hollander, 228 AD2d 283, 285, lv denied 88 NY2d 816). Because plaintiffs failed to establish that defendant owed them a duty, either as an attorney or by reason of a contractual undertaking, plaintiffs’ negligence and breach of contract claims were [35]*35properly dismissed. Plaintiffs’ additional claim in arguing this appeal, that defendant owed them a fiduciary duty, is improperly raised for the first time on appeal. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Lerner, Rubin and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 34, 698 N.Y.S.2d 19, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11377, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fleissler-v-bayroff-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack