Gottlieb v. Karlsson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gottlieb v. Karlsson

295 A.D.2d 158, 744 N.Y.S.2d 118, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5915

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

DecidedJune 11, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 295 A.D.2d 158 (Gottlieb v. Karlsson) 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

Gottlieb v. Karlsson, 295 A.D.2d 158, 744 N.Y.S.2d 118, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5915 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered March 28, 2001, which, to the extent appealed from, granted plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment on its cause of action for legal malpractice to the extent of finding liability as against defendants-appellants, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly found that plaintiff had made out a prima facie case of legal malpractice on the part of appellants. The evidence demonstrated that two months after the Appellate Division, Second Department had rendered a determination limiting the decedent’s personal liability in the underlying action to $16,000 (see, Hillcrest Realty Co. v Gottlieb, 208 AD2d 803), appellants counseled their client without first checking the status of his appeal, to settle the underlying action by paying the plaintiff in the underlying action $120,000. Since appellants did not, in opposition to plaintiffs prima facie adequate demonstration of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law upon its malpractice claim, come forward with evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue as to whether they had in fact committed malpractice or as to whether such malpractice as they were shown to have committed proximately caused plaintiff to sustain damages, the grant of partial summary judgment in plaintiff’s favor on the issue of appellants’ liability for legal malpractice was proper (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562-563).

[159]*159We have considered appellants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Rubin and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered March 28, 2001, which, to the extent appealed from, granted plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment on its cause of action for legal malpractice to the extent of finding liability as against defendants-appellants, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly found that plaintiff had made out a prima facie case of legal malpractice on the part of appellants. The evidence demonstrated that two months after the Appellate Division, Second Department had rendered a determination limiting the decedent’s personal liability in the underlying action to $16,000 (see, Hillcrest Realty Co. v Gottlieb, 208 AD2d 803), appellants counseled their client without first checking the status of his appeal, to settle the underlying action by paying the plaintiff in the underlying action $120,000. Since appellants did not, in opposition to plaintiffs prima facie adequate demonstration of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law upon its malpractice claim, come forward with evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue as to whether they had in fact committed malpractice or as to whether such malpractice as they were shown to have committed proximately caused plaintiff to sustain damages, the grant of partial summary judgment in plaintiff’s favor on the issue of appellants’ liability for legal malpractice was proper (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562-563).

[159]*159We have considered appellants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Rubin and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 158, 744 N.Y.S.2d 118, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5915, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gottlieb-v-karlsson-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack