Keane v. Tomsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Keane v. Tomsky

290 A.D.2d 340, 736 N.Y.S.2d 221, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 480

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

DecidedJanuary 22, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 290 A.D.2d 340 (Keane v. Tomsky) 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

Keane v. Tomsky, 290 A.D.2d 340, 736 N.Y.S.2d 221, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 480 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Kapnick, J.), entered on or about November 9, 2000, which denied defendants- appellants’ motion to dismiss the complaint as against them pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Appellants’ motion to dismiss was properly denied since the documentary evidence upon which the motion is premised does not establish, as a matter of law, that defendants, plaintiffs attorneys in the underlying action, did not commit actionable malpractice in connection with serving the defendants in that action (see, Ladenburg Thalmann & Co. v Tim’s Amusements, 275 AD2d 24:3/246). Concur — Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Buckley, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Kapnick, J.), entered on or about November 9, 2000, which denied defendants- appellants’ motion to dismiss the complaint as against them pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Appellants’ motion to dismiss was properly denied since the documentary evidence upon which the motion is premised does not establish, as a matter of law, that defendants, plaintiffs attorneys in the underlying action, did not commit actionable malpractice in connection with serving the defendants in that action (see, Ladenburg Thalmann & Co. v Tim’s Amusements, 275 AD2d 24:3/246). Concur — Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Buckley, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

290 A.D.2d 340, 736 N.Y.S.2d 221, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 480, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keane-v-tomsky-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack