Knecht v. Tusa

15 A.D.3d 626, 789 N.Y.S.2d 904, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2032
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 28, 2005
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 15 A.D.3d 626 (Knecht v. Tusa) 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
Knecht v. Tusa, 15 A.D.3d 626, 789 N.Y.S.2d 904, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2032 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

[627]*627In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for legal malpractice and for attorney misconduct pursuant to Judiciary Law § 487 (1), the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Costello, J.), dated August 16, 2004, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the third cause of action alleging a violation of Judiciary Law § 487.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the third cause of action alleging a violation of Judiciary Law § 487. The defendant demonstrated her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that there was no evidence of her intent “to deceive, or a chronic, extreme pattern of legal delinquency that proximately caused the [plaintiffs’] alleged damages” (O’Connell v Kerson, 291 AD2d 386, 387 [2002]; see O’Connor v Dime Sav. Bank of N.Y., 265 AD2d 313 [1999]; Ulrich v Hausfeld, 269 AD2d 526 [2000]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact that they sustained any damage proximately caused either by the defendant’s alleged deceit or by an alleged chronic, extreme pattern of legal delinquency by the defendant (see O’Connell v Kerson, supra at 387; O’Connor v Dime Sav. Bank of N.Y., supra at 314; Manna v Ades, 237 AD2d 264, 265 [1997]; Di Prima v Di Prima, 111 AD2d 901, 902 [1985]). H. Miller, J.E, Cozier, Ritter and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Lawrence Ripak Co., Inc. v. Gdanski
2016 NY Slip Op 6805 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Cullin v. Spiess
122 A.D.3d 792 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Dupree v. Voorhees
102 A.D.3d 912 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Cinao v. Reers
27 Misc. 3d 195 (New York Supreme Court, 2010)
Moormann v. Perini & Hoerger
65 A.D.3d 1106 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Boglia v. Greenberg
63 A.D.3d 973 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Ideal Steel Supply Corp. v. Beil
55 A.D.3d 544 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Amalfitano v. Rosenberg
Second Circuit, 2008
Pui Sang Lai v. Shuk Yim Lau
50 A.D.3d 758 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Papa v. 24 Caryl Avenue Realty Co.
23 A.D.3d 361 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Tawil v. Wasser
21 A.D.3d 948 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Izko Sportswear Co. v. Flaum
20 A.D.3d 392 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
15 A.D.3d 626, 789 N.Y.S.2d 904, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2032, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/knecht-v-tusa-nyappdiv-2005.