Millennium Import, LLC v. Reed Smith LLP

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Millennium Import, LLC v. Reed Smith LLP

78 A.D.3d 404, 909 N.Y.S.2d 629

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

DecidedNovember 4, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 78 A.D.3d 404 (Millennium Import, LLC v. Reed Smith 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.

Bluebook

Millennium Import, LLC v. Reed Smith LLP, 78 A.D.3d 404, 909 N.Y.S.2d 629 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

[405]*405Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered March 5, 2010, which, in an action alleging legal malpractice, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the first amended complaint on the ground of collateral estoppel, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly denied defendants’ motion. The issue that was necessarily determined in the Moet arbitration— that Moet failed to give timely notice to Phillips Beverage Co. under the indemnification provisions of the parties’ purchase agreement — had no preclusive effect with respect to the malpractice claim. We therefore need not address defendants’ remaining arguments. Concur — Saxe, J.E, Nardelli, McGuire, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

[405]*405Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered March 5, 2010, which, in an action alleging legal malpractice, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the first amended complaint on the ground of collateral estoppel, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly denied defendants’ motion. The issue that was necessarily determined in the Moet arbitration— that Moet failed to give timely notice to Phillips Beverage Co. under the indemnification provisions of the parties’ purchase agreement — had no preclusive effect with respect to the malpractice claim. We therefore need not address defendants’ remaining arguments. Concur — Saxe, J.E, Nardelli, McGuire, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 A.D.3d 404, 909 N.Y.S.2d 629, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/millennium-import-llc-v-reed-smith-llp-nyappdiv-2010.