John P. Tilden, Ltd. v. Profeta & Eisenstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

John P. Tilden, Ltd. v. Profeta & Eisenstein

236 A.D.2d 292, 654 N.Y.S.2d 10, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1423

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

DecidedFebruary 20, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 236 A.D.2d 292 (John P. Tilden, Ltd. v. Profeta & Eisenstein) 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

John P. Tilden, Ltd. v. Profeta & Eisenstein, 236 A.D.2d 292, 654 N.Y.S.2d 10, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1423 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered December 19, 1995, which, in a legal malpractice action, denied plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment and granted defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff’s contention that had defendants timely served on opposing counsel plaintiff’s motion in the underlying action for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals (Nestor v John P. Til-den, Ltd., 175 AD2d 43, lv dismissed 79 NY2d 849), the Court of Appeals would have granted leave to appeal and reversed this Court’s unanimous affirmance, and that a retrial of the issue of damages would have resulted in a more favorable [293]*293outcome, was properly rejected as "too speculative” to raise a genuine issue of fact with respect to proximate cause (see, Sherwood Group v Dornbush, Mensch, Mandelstam & Silver-man, 191 AD2d 292), particularly since the basis of plaintiff’s purported argument to the Court of Appeals had not been raised before the trial court and was, therefore, not preserved for appellate review. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered December 19, 1995, which, in a legal malpractice action, denied plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment and granted defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff’s contention that had defendants timely served on opposing counsel plaintiff’s motion in the underlying action for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals (Nestor v John P. Til-den, Ltd., 175 AD2d 43, lv dismissed 79 NY2d 849), the Court of Appeals would have granted leave to appeal and reversed this Court’s unanimous affirmance, and that a retrial of the issue of damages would have resulted in a more favorable [293]*293outcome, was properly rejected as "too speculative” to raise a genuine issue of fact with respect to proximate cause (see, Sherwood Group v Dornbush, Mensch, Mandelstam & Silver-man, 191 AD2d 292), particularly since the basis of plaintiff’s purported argument to the Court of Appeals had not been raised before the trial court and was, therefore, not preserved for appellate review. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 A.D.2d 292, 654 N.Y.S.2d 10, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1423, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-p-tilden-ltd-v-profeta-eisenstein-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack