Harvey v. Greenberg

82 A.D.3d 683, 919 N.Y.2d 519
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 31, 2011·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Plaintiffs allegations in support of her legal malpractice claim were conclusory, speculative and contradicted by the documentary evidence submitted on the motion to dismiss. The trial judge in the underlying matrimonial action conducted a thorough allocution on the stipulation of settlement. Plaintiff acknowledged that she understood and agreed with the terms of the settlement and knew that it was a full and final agreement. She further stated that her attorney had answered her questions and that she was satisfied with the services he provided. Under these circumstances, the motion court properly dismissed the complaint (see Weissman v Kessler, 78 AD3d 465 [2010]; Katebi v Fink, 51 AD3d 424 [2008]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Saxe, J.P, Friedman, Acosta, De-Grasse and Richter, JJ.

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

Harvey v. Greenberg, 82 A.D.3d 683, 919 N.Y.2d 519 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

82 A.D.3d 683 (Harvey v. Greenberg) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Katz v. Essner
136 A.D.3d 575 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Lieblich v. Pruzan
104 A.D.3d 462 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
NRT New York, LLC v. Kontos
101 A.D.3d 584 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Schloss v. Steinberg
100 A.D.3d 476 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)