Kassel v. Donohue

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kassel v. Donohue

127 A.D.3d 674, 6 N.Y.S.3d 916

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

DecidedApril 30, 2015

Docket14988 150886/13

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 127 A.D.3d 674 (Kassel v. Donohue) 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

Kassel v. Donohue, 127 A.D.3d 674, 6 N.Y.S.3d 916 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered August 26, 2013, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendants James P. Donohue and Crystal and Donohue’s motion to dismiss the complaint as against them, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint as against James P. Donohue and Crystal and Donohue.

The allegations in the complaint reflect plaintiffs dissatisfaction with defendants’ strategic choices and tactics in the conduct of the arbitration; there is no showing that those choices and tactics were unreasonable (see Rosner v Paley, 65 NY2d 736, 738 [1985]; Pouncy v Solotaroff, 100 AD3d 410 [1st Dept 2012], lv denied 21 NY3d 857 [2013]; Dweck Law Firm v Mann, 283 AD2d 292 [1st Dept 2001]).

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Saxe, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered August 26, 2013, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendants James P. Donohue and Crystal and Donohue’s motion to dismiss the complaint as against them, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint as against James P. Donohue and Crystal and Donohue.

The allegations in the complaint reflect plaintiffs dissatisfaction with defendants’ strategic choices and tactics in the conduct of the arbitration; there is no showing that those choices and tactics were unreasonable (see Rosner v Paley, 65 NY2d 736, 738 [1985]; Pouncy v Solotaroff, 100 AD3d 410 [1st Dept 2012], lv denied 21 NY3d 857 [2013]; Dweck Law Firm v Mann, 283 AD2d 292 [1st Dept 2001]).

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Saxe, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 A.D.3d 674, 6 N.Y.S.3d 916, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kassel-v-donohue-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack