Lebeau v. Morales

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lebeau v. Morales

245 A.D.2d 269, 665 N.Y.S.2d 940, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12083

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

DecidedDecember 1, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 245 A.D.2d 269 (Lebeau v. Morales) 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

Lebeau v. Morales, 245 A.D.2d 269, 665 N.Y.S.2d 940, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12083 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for legal malpractice and breach of contract, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Hall, J.), dated November 22, 1996, as denied that branch of their motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7) which was to dismiss the first cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice and breach of contract.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court’s conclusion that the plaintiff’s first cause of action is sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7). Furthermore, the damages alleged in the complaint constituted consequential damages which may be recoverable (see, Kenford Co. v County of Erie, 73 NY2d 312; Affiliated Credit Adjustors v Carlucci & Legum, 139 AD2d 611). Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Copertino and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for legal malpractice and breach of contract, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Hall, J.), dated November 22, 1996, as denied that branch of their motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7) which was to dismiss the first cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice and breach of contract.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court’s conclusion that the plaintiff’s first cause of action is sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7). Furthermore, the damages alleged in the complaint constituted consequential damages which may be recoverable (see, Kenford Co. v County of Erie, 73 NY2d 312; Affiliated Credit Adjustors v Carlucci & Legum, 139 AD2d 611). Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Copertino and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 A.D.2d 269, 665 N.Y.S.2d 940, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12083, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lebeau-v-morales-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack