Mongon v. Banks

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

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

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

286 A.D.2d 426 (Mongon v. Banks) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Schauer v. Joyce
429 N.E.2d 83 (New York Court of Appeals, 1981)
Lanoce v. Anderson, Banks, Curran & Donoghue
259 A.D.2d 965 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Shopsin v. Siben & Siben, Esqs.
268 A.D.2d 578 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)