Minlionica v. Garcia & Stallone

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Minlionica v. Garcia & Stallone

285 A.D.2d 453, 727 N.Y.S.2d 340, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6902

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

DecidedJuly 2, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 285 A.D.2d 453 (Minlionica v. Garcia & Stallone) 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

Minlionica v. Garcia & Stallone, 285 A.D.2d 453, 727 N.Y.S.2d 340, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6902 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated February 1, 2000, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In response, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact that any negligence on the part of the defendant in litigating the underlying action was a proximate cause of her failure to obtain a larger settlement (see, Luniewski v Zeitlin, 188 AD2d 642). Moreover, the plaintiff’s contention that she was entitled to a larger settlement is mere speculation (see, Luniewski v Zeitlin, supra). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Altman, J. P., H. Miller, Smith and Cozier, 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 plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated February 1, 2000, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In response, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact that any negligence on the part of the defendant in litigating the underlying action was a proximate cause of her failure to obtain a larger settlement (see, Luniewski v Zeitlin, 188 AD2d 642). Moreover, the plaintiff’s contention that she was entitled to a larger settlement is mere speculation (see, Luniewski v Zeitlin, supra). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Altman, J. P., H. Miller, Smith and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

285 A.D.2d 453, 727 N.Y.S.2d 340, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6902, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/minlionica-v-garcia-stallone-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack