Logan v. Werbel, Werbel & Strauss

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Logan v. Werbel, Werbel & Strauss

225 A.D.2d 360, 638 N.Y.2d 648, 638 N.Y.S.2d 648, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2204

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

DecidedMarch 12, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 225 A.D.2d 360 (Logan v. Werbel, Werbel & Strauss) 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

Logan v. Werbel, Werbel & Strauss, 225 A.D.2d 360, 638 N.Y.2d 648, 638 N.Y.S.2d 648, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2204 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

The letter from the non-appealing third-party defendant to third-party plaintiff, advising that he had been retained by plaintiff to prosecute her personal injury action and demanding the file, raises an issues of fact as to whether third-party defendant-appellant was retained by plaintiff, as he claims, solely to prosecute a legal malpractice action against third-party plaintiff, or whether he was retained as third-party plaintiff’s successor in the personal injury action (compare, Lott v Benjamin, 186 AD2d 951, lv denied 81 NY2d 704). Notably, third-party defendants were retained well before the running of the Statute of Limitations in the personal injury action (cf., Hansen v Brognano, 137 AD2d 880). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Kupferman and Tom, JJ.

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

The letter from the non-appealing third-party defendant to third-party plaintiff, advising that he had been retained by plaintiff to prosecute her personal injury action and demanding the file, raises an issues of fact as to whether third-party defendant-appellant was retained by plaintiff, as he claims, solely to prosecute a legal malpractice action against third-party plaintiff, or whether he was retained as third-party plaintiff’s successor in the personal injury action (compare, Lott v Benjamin, 186 AD2d 951, lv denied 81 NY2d 704). Notably, third-party defendants were retained well before the running of the Statute of Limitations in the personal injury action (cf., Hansen v Brognano, 137 AD2d 880). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Kupferman and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.D.2d 360, 638 N.Y.2d 648, 638 N.Y.S.2d 648, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2204, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/logan-v-werbel-werbel-strauss-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack