Keller v. Barry

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Keller v. Barry

73 A.D.2d 611, 422 N.Y.S.2d 449, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14412

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

DecidedDecember 10, 1979

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 73 A.D.2d 611 (Keller v. Barry) 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

Keller v. Barry, 73 A.D.2d 611, 422 N.Y.S.2d 449, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14412 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover damages, inter alia, for legal malpractice, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated November 6, 1978, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. Order reversed, with $50 costs and disbursements, motion to dismiss denied and complaint reinstated. The complaint is sufficient on its face. The allegations contained in the affirmation submitted on behalf of the defendant’s motion to dismiss could not be considered unless the court treated the motion as one for summary judgment (see Rovello v Oroñno Realty Co., 40 NY2d 633). Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, O’Connor and Lazer, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action to recover damages, inter alia, for legal malpractice, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated November 6, 1978, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. Order reversed, with $50 costs and disbursements, motion to dismiss denied and complaint reinstated. The complaint is sufficient on its face. The allegations contained in the affirmation submitted on behalf of the defendant’s motion to dismiss could not be considered unless the court treated the motion as one for summary judgment (see Rovello v Oroñno Realty Co., 40 NY2d 633). Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, O’Connor and Lazer, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 A.D.2d 611, 422 N.Y.S.2d 449, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14412, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keller-v-barry-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack