Mongon v. Banks

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mongon v. Banks

286 A.D.2d 426, 729 N.Y.S.2d 902

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

DecidedAugust 20, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 286 A.D.2d 426 (Mongon v. Banks) 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

Mongon v. Banks, 286 A.D.2d 426, 729 N.Y.S.2d 902 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

In two related actions to recover damages for legal malpractice, the defendants in Action No. 1 appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Cow-hey, J.), entered March 15, 2000, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in that action.

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

The Supreme Court properly denied the appellants’ motion for summary judgment, since they did not establish that the plaintiff would be unable to prove the essential elements of a legal malpractice claim (see, Schauer v Joyce, 54 NY2d 1, 6; Shopsin v Siben & Siben, 268 AD2d 578; Lanoce v Anderson, Banks, Curran & Donoghue, 259 AD2d 965). Krausman, J. P., H. Miller, Schmidt and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

In two related actions to recover damages for legal malpractice, the defendants in Action No. 1 appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Cow-hey, J.), entered March 15, 2000, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in that action.

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

The Supreme Court properly denied the appellants’ motion for summary judgment, since they did not establish that the plaintiff would be unable to prove the essential elements of a legal malpractice claim (see, Schauer v Joyce, 54 NY2d 1, 6; Shopsin v Siben & Siben, 268 AD2d 578; Lanoce v Anderson, Banks, Curran & Donoghue, 259 AD2d 965). Krausman, J. P., H. Miller, Schmidt and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 A.D.2d 426, 729 N.Y.S.2d 902, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mongon-v-banks-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack