Frankel v. Vernon & Ginsburg, LLP
This text of 101 A.D.3d 447 (Frankel v. Vernon & Ginsburg, 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.
Opinion
The IAS court properly declined to dismiss the legal malpractice cause of action. Defendants failed to sustain their burden on summary judgment of demonstrating that plaintiff would be unable to prove one of the essential elements of his claim (see Sabalza v Salgado, 85 AD3d 436 [1st Dept 2011]). On the contrary, the record demonstrated that plaintiffs decedent had viable causes of action for breach of the warranty of habitability and nuisance against defendants in the underlying action (see 61 W. 62 Owners Corp. v CGM EMP LLC, 77 AD3d 330 [1st Dept 2010], affd in part, mod in part 16 NY3d 822 [2011]; Misra v Yedid, 37 AD3d 284, 285 [1st Dept 2007]). Furthermore, the record demonstrated that plaintiff’s decedent might have recovered legal fees, which alone exceeded the amount of the settlement in this matter (Real Property Law § 234).
In light of the foregoing, we need not reach defendants’ remaining contentions. Concur — Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Moskowitz and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
101 A.D.3d 447, 956 N.Y.2d 486, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frankel-v-vernon-ginsburg-llp-nyappdiv-2012.