Melnitzky v. Nathanson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Melnitzky v. Nathanson

13 A.D.3d 131, 785 N.Y.S.2d 688, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15030

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

DecidedDecember 9, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 13 A.D.3d 131 (Melnitzky v. Nathanson) 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

Melnitzky v. Nathanson, 13 A.D.3d 131, 785 N.Y.S.2d 688, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15030 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered November 6, 2003, which granted defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The malpractice claim that defendant attorney’s conduct was the “but for” cause of plaintiff’s losses was speculative (see Alter & Alter v Cannella, 284 AD2d 138, 139 [2001]), it reflected nonactionable strategic choices (see Iocovello v Weingrad & Weingrad, 4 AD3d 208 [2004]), and, as to the claimed failure to plead defamation, was entirely conclusory (see Gonzalez v Lombardino, 301 AD2d 437 [2003]). Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Friedman and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered November 6, 2003, which granted defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The malpractice claim that defendant attorney’s conduct was the “but for” cause of plaintiff’s losses was speculative (see Alter & Alter v Cannella, 284 AD2d 138, 139 [2001]), it reflected nonactionable strategic choices (see Iocovello v Weingrad & Weingrad, 4 AD3d 208 [2004]), and, as to the claimed failure to plead defamation, was entirely conclusory (see Gonzalez v Lombardino, 301 AD2d 437 [2003]). Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Friedman and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 A.D.3d 131, 785 N.Y.S.2d 688, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15030, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/melnitzky-v-nathanson-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack