Ledford v. Trammell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ledford v. Trammell

39 A.D.2d 640, 331 N.Y.S.2d 146, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4856

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

DecidedApril 19, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 39 A.D.2d 640 (Ledford v. Trammell) 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

Ledford v. Trammell, 39 A.D.2d 640, 331 N.Y.S.2d 146, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4856 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

—■ Judgment and order insofar as they grant plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment unanimously reversed and motion denied; otherwise order affirmed, [641]*641all without costs. Memorandum: In this malpractice action, the pleadings and moving papers reveal the existence of factual questions to be resolved by a trial of the issues. Among these are whether MVAIC was correct in rejecting plaintiff’s claim in January, 1964, whether there was a proper disclaimer made by the insurance carrier on September 16, 1963 and whether defendant exercised the required degree of professional diligence and skill in his representation of plaintiff’s interests. Furthermore, we point out that it was error for Special Term to decide the present motions based upon a declaratory judgment granted by another Justice in an action in which defendant was neither a party nor a person who was in strict privity with any of the parties to that action. (Israel v. Wood Dolson Co., 1 N Y 2d 116; Mirabella v. De Cecco, 23 A D 2d 531.) (Appeal from judgment and order of Erie Special Term granting summary judgment in action for damages for malpractice.) Present—Marsh, J. P., Witmer, Gabrielli, Cardamone and Henry, JJ.

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

—■ Judgment and order insofar as they grant plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment unanimously reversed and motion denied; otherwise order affirmed, [641]*641all without costs. Memorandum: In this malpractice action, the pleadings and moving papers reveal the existence of factual questions to be resolved by a trial of the issues. Among these are whether MVAIC was correct in rejecting plaintiff’s claim in January, 1964, whether there was a proper disclaimer made by the insurance carrier on September 16, 1963 and whether defendant exercised the required degree of professional diligence and skill in his representation of plaintiff’s interests. Furthermore, we point out that it was error for Special Term to decide the present motions based upon a declaratory judgment granted by another Justice in an action in which defendant was neither a party nor a person who was in strict privity with any of the parties to that action. (Israel v. Wood Dolson Co., 1 N Y 2d 116; Mirabella v. De Cecco, 23 A D 2d 531.) (Appeal from judgment and order of Erie Special Term granting summary judgment in action for damages for malpractice.) Present—Marsh, J. P., Witmer, Gabrielli, Cardamone and Henry, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.2d 640, 331 N.Y.S.2d 146, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4856, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ledford-v-trammell-nyappdiv-1972.