Marinelli Associates v. Morrison

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marinelli Associates v. Morrison

303 A.D.2d 386, 755 N.Y.S.2d 668

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

DecidedMarch 3, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 303 A.D.2d 386 (Marinelli Associates v. Morrison) 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

Marinelli Associates v. Morrison, 303 A.D.2d 386, 755 N.Y.S.2d 668 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the defendant Edward A. Morrison appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), dated April 25, 2002, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“The proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case” (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; Drago v King, 283 AD2d 603 [2001] ). Here, contrary to the appellant’s contention, he failed to establish his prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The appellant’s submissions on his motion for summary judgment failed to disprove that but for his failure to timely interpose causes of action alleging fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and conversion, the plaintiff would have succeeded in its initial claims against the other members of the joint venture in question. Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment was properly denied. Smith, J.P., Goldstein, Townes and Mastro, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the defendant Edward A. Morrison appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), dated April 25, 2002, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“The proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case” (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; Drago v King, 283 AD2d 603 [2001] ). Here, contrary to the appellant’s contention, he failed to establish his prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The appellant’s submissions on his motion for summary judgment failed to disprove that but for his failure to timely interpose causes of action alleging fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and conversion, the plaintiff would have succeeded in its initial claims against the other members of the joint venture in question. Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment was properly denied. Smith, J.P., Goldstein, Townes and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 A.D.2d 386, 755 N.Y.S.2d 668, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marinelli-associates-v-morrison-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack