McKenna v. Gordon & Gordon, P. C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McKenna v. Gordon & Gordon, P. C.

254 A.D.2d 70, 678 N.Y.S.2d 493, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10149

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

DecidedOctober 8, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 254 A.D.2d 70 (McKenna v. Gordon & Gordon, P. C.) 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

McKenna v. Gordon & Gordon, P. C., 254 A.D.2d 70, 678 N.Y.S.2d 493, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10149 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered December 4, 1997, dismissing the complaint, and bringing up for review an order which, in an action for legal malpractice, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the action as barred by collateral estoppel and the Statute of Limitations, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered November 18, 1997, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

Whether defendants, who were plaintiffs lawyers in a sexual harassment action she brought in Federal court, coerced her into settling that action at a time when she was legally incompetent was clearly raised and necessarily decided against plaintiff on her application in the Federal court action to vacate such settlement and the judgment entered thereon (McKenna v Ward, 1997 US Dist LEXIS 1609 [SD NY, Feb. 18, 1997, [71]*71Keenan, J. (88 Civ 0513)]). Accordingly, the IAS Court correctly dismissed the action on the ground of collateral estoppel (see, First Nationwide Bank v Konecky, 224 AD2d 283, lv dismissed 88 NY2d 1016; compare, Weiss v Manfredi, 83 NY2d 974). In view of the foregoing, we need not address the Statute of Limitations issue. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rubin, Tom and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered December 4, 1997, dismissing the complaint, and bringing up for review an order which, in an action for legal malpractice, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the action as barred by collateral estoppel and the Statute of Limitations, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered November 18, 1997, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

Whether defendants, who were plaintiffs lawyers in a sexual harassment action she brought in Federal court, coerced her into settling that action at a time when she was legally incompetent was clearly raised and necessarily decided against plaintiff on her application in the Federal court action to vacate such settlement and the judgment entered thereon (McKenna v Ward, 1997 US Dist LEXIS 1609 [SD NY, Feb. 18, 1997, [71]*71Keenan, J. (88 Civ 0513)]). Accordingly, the IAS Court correctly dismissed the action on the ground of collateral estoppel (see, First Nationwide Bank v Konecky, 224 AD2d 283, lv dismissed 88 NY2d 1016; compare, Weiss v Manfredi, 83 NY2d 974). In view of the foregoing, we need not address the Statute of Limitations issue. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rubin, Tom and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D.2d 70, 678 N.Y.S.2d 493, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10149, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mckenna-v-gordon-gordon-p-c-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack