Freund v. Rosengarten

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Freund v. Rosengarten

283 A.D.2d 218, 728 N.Y.S.2d 365, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4791

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

DecidedMay 10, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 283 A.D.2d 218 (Freund v. Rosengarten) 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

Freund v. Rosengarten, 283 A.D.2d 218, 728 N.Y.S.2d 365, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4791 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Kapnick, J.), entered July 12, 2000, which, in an action for legal malpractice, insofar as appealed from, granted defendant-respondent’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against him, and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for partial summary judgment as against respondent, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The action was properly dismissed as against respondent on the ground that plaintiff would not have prevailed on his appeal of the underlying action even if respondent had perfected it (see, Weiner v Hershman & Leicher, 248 AD2d 193), and [219]*219even if consideration were given to the various arguments plaintiff now makes that were not before the IAS court in the underlying action. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Tom, Andrias 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 (Barbara Kapnick, J.), entered July 12, 2000, which, in an action for legal malpractice, insofar as appealed from, granted defendant-respondent’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against him, and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for partial summary judgment as against respondent, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The action was properly dismissed as against respondent on the ground that plaintiff would not have prevailed on his appeal of the underlying action even if respondent had perfected it (see, Weiner v Hershman & Leicher, 248 AD2d 193), and [219]*219even if consideration were given to the various arguments plaintiff now makes that were not before the IAS court in the underlying action. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Tom, Andrias and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D.2d 218, 728 N.Y.S.2d 365, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4791, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/freund-v-rosengarten-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack