Kinberg v. Garr

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kinberg v. Garr

28 A.D.3d 245, 811 N.Y.S.2d 568

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

DecidedApril 6, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 28 A.D.3d 245 (Kinberg v. Garr) 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

Kinberg v. Garr, 28 A.D.3d 245, 811 N.Y.S.2d 568 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan J. Saks, J.), entered March 8, 2004, which granted defendants’ motion for [246]*246renewal and dismissed this legal malpractice action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiffs adverse determination in defendants’ prior action to recover fees for the rendering of professional services precludes a finding of malpractice with regard to the same services (see Ahearn v Arvan, 2 AD3d 469 [2003]; Chisholm-Ryder Co. v Sommer & Sommer, 78 AD2d 143 [1980]), as such determination “implicitly finds that there was no malpractice” (Koppelman v Liddle, O’Connor, Finkelstein & Robinson, 246 AD2d 365, 366 [1998]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J.P., Nardelli, Williams, Sweeny and McGuire, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan J. Saks, J.), entered March 8, 2004, which granted defendants’ motion for [246]*246renewal and dismissed this legal malpractice action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiffs adverse determination in defendants’ prior action to recover fees for the rendering of professional services precludes a finding of malpractice with regard to the same services (see Ahearn v Arvan, 2 AD3d 469 [2003]; Chisholm-Ryder Co. v Sommer & Sommer, 78 AD2d 143 [1980]), as such determination “implicitly finds that there was no malpractice” (Koppelman v Liddle, O’Connor, Finkelstein & Robinson, 246 AD2d 365, 366 [1998]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J.P., Nardelli, Williams, Sweeny and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 A.D.3d 245, 811 N.Y.S.2d 568, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kinberg-v-garr-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack