Merlin Biomed Asset Management, LLC v. Wolf Block Schorr & Solis-Cohen LLP
This text of 23 A.D.3d 243 (Merlin Biomed Asset Management, LLC v. Wolf Block Schorr & Solis-Cohen LLP) 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.
Opinion
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula J. Omansky, J.), entered November 1, 2004, which, inter alia, granted defendants’ cross motion for partial summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered September 16, 2004, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as superseded by the appeal from the order of November 1, 2004.
The motion court properly concluded that plaintiffs were required to offer expert testimony in support of their claim for legal malpractice that raises issues regarding the standard of care of an attorney drafting purchasing and marketing agreements in the field of hedge funds and financial management companies, a subject that is not part of the jurors’ ordinary, daily experience (see Schadoff v Russ, 278 AD2d 222 [2000]). Defendants’ expert submission was sufficient to meet their burden that they did not depart from the applicable standard of care (see id.). Since plaintiffs failed to offer expert testimony on the subject, they failed to raise an issue of fact and partial summary judgment was properly granted defendants (see id.; Zeller v Copps, 294 AD2d 683, 684 [2002]). Concur—Marlow, J.P., Nardelli, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
23 A.D.3d 243, 803 N.Y.S.2d 552, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/merlin-biomed-asset-management-llc-v-wolf-block-schorr-solis-cohen-llp-nyappdiv-2005.