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

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

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).

225 A.D.2d 360 (Logan v. Werbel, Werbel & Strauss) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hansen v. Brognano
137 A.D.2d 880 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
Lott v. Benjamin
186 A.D.2d 951 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)