Medhi Dilmaghani & Co. v. Bring Savad & Fein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Medhi Dilmaghani & Co. v. Bring Savad & Fein

275 A.D.2d 356, 712 N.Y.S.2d 415, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8677

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

DecidedAugust 14, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 275 A.D.2d 356 (Medhi Dilmaghani & Co. v. Bring Savad & Fein) 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

Medhi Dilmaghani & Co. v. Bring Savad & Fein, 275 A.D.2d 356, 712 N.Y.S.2d 415, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8677 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the third-party defendant, Chicago Insurance Company, appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), entered May 26, 1999, as denied its cross motion for summary judgment declaring that it is not obligated to defend and indemnify the third-party plaintiffs in the main action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, there is an issue of fact as to whether, prior to the commencement of the main action, the defendants third-party plaintiffs had any reason to believe that a claim might be made against them by the plaintiff in connection with legal advice regarding the subject lease. Accordingly, summary judgment was properly denied (see generally, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320). Ritter, J. P., Santucci, Florio and H. Miller, 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 third-party defendant, Chicago Insurance Company, appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), entered May 26, 1999, as denied its cross motion for summary judgment declaring that it is not obligated to defend and indemnify the third-party plaintiffs in the main action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, there is an issue of fact as to whether, prior to the commencement of the main action, the defendants third-party plaintiffs had any reason to believe that a claim might be made against them by the plaintiff in connection with legal advice regarding the subject lease. Accordingly, summary judgment was properly denied (see generally, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320). Ritter, J. P., Santucci, Florio and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 356, 712 N.Y.S.2d 415, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8677, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/medhi-dilmaghani-co-v-bring-savad-fein-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack