Kinberg v. Garr

28 A.D.3d 245, 811 N.Y.S.2d 568
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 6, 2006·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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

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

28 A.D.3d 245 (Kinberg v. Garr) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Meirowitz v. Greenberg
2025 NY Slip Op 32124(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2025)
Zito v. Fischbein Badillo Wagner Harding
80 A.D.3d 520 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)