Hoffman v. Anolik

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hoffman v. Anolik

250 A.D.2d 733, 672 N.Y.S.2d 785, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5762

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

DecidedMay 18, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 250 A.D.2d 733 (Hoffman v. Anolik) 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

Hoffman v. Anolik, 250 A.D.2d 733, 672 N.Y.S.2d 785, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5762 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barasch, J.), dated November 19, 1996, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and, in effect, denied her cross motion for discovery.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the plaintiff failed to raise a triable question of fact that an attorney-client relationship existed between the defendant and herself (see, CPLR 3212 [b]). In any event, even assuming there existed the requisite attorney-client relationship, the plaintiff has not made out a prima facie case for legal malpractice. She has failed to establish any negligence on the part of the defendant, much less that, but for his negligence, she would have succeeded in her discrimination claims against her former employers (see generally, Volpe v Canfield, 237 AD2d 282; Platt v Portnoy, 220 AD2d 652).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J. P., Joy, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barasch, J.), dated November 19, 1996, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and, in effect, denied her cross motion for discovery.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the plaintiff failed to raise a triable question of fact that an attorney-client relationship existed between the defendant and herself (see, CPLR 3212 [b]). In any event, even assuming there existed the requisite attorney-client relationship, the plaintiff has not made out a prima facie case for legal malpractice. She has failed to establish any negligence on the part of the defendant, much less that, but for his negligence, she would have succeeded in her discrimination claims against her former employers (see generally, Volpe v Canfield, 237 AD2d 282; Platt v Portnoy, 220 AD2d 652).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J. P., Joy, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D.2d 733, 672 N.Y.S.2d 785, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5762, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoffman-v-anolik-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack