Morrison v. Epstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Morrison v. Epstein

199 A.D.2d 369, 608 N.Y.S.2d 92, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12145

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

DecidedDecember 20, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 199 A.D.2d 369 (Morrison v. Epstein) 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

Morrison v. Epstein, 199 A.D.2d 369, 608 N.Y.S.2d 92, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12145 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover a fee for legal services, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Delaney, J.), entered August 9, 1991, as denied those branches of his motion which were for an award of sanctions and summary judgment dismissing the defendants’ third counterclaim sounding in legal malpractice.

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

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, we find no improvident exercise of discretion in the court’s refusal to impose sanctions pursuant to 22 NYCRR part 130. Moreover, we agree with the court’s determination that triable issues of fact exist with respect to the third counterclaim sounding in legal malpractice (see, PJI 2:152). Sullivan, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter and Joy, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover a fee for legal services, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Delaney, J.), entered August 9, 1991, as denied those branches of his motion which were for an award of sanctions and summary judgment dismissing the defendants’ third counterclaim sounding in legal malpractice.

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

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, we find no improvident exercise of discretion in the court’s refusal to impose sanctions pursuant to 22 NYCRR part 130. Moreover, we agree with the court’s determination that triable issues of fact exist with respect to the third counterclaim sounding in legal malpractice (see, PJI 2:152). Sullivan, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 A.D.2d 369, 608 N.Y.S.2d 92, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12145, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morrison-v-epstein-nyappdiv-1993.