O'Brien v. Reich

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

O'Brien v. Reich

290 A.D.2d 544, 737 N.Y.S.2d 297, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 757

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

DecidedJanuary 28, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 290 A.D.2d 544 (O'Brien v. Reich) 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

O'Brien v. Reich, 290 A.D.2d 544, 737 N.Y.S.2d 297, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 757 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), dated January 17, 2001, which denied their motion to vacate their default in opposing the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ motion to vacate their default in opposing the defendants’ motion for summary judgment since they did not establish that they had a meritorious cause of action (see, CPLR 5015 [a]; Woodard v LaGuardia Hosp., 282 AD2d 529; Parker v City of New York, 272 AD2d 310). In any event, we note that the defendants made a prima facie showing in their motion for summary judgment that the plaintiffs would be unable to prove the essential elements of a legal malpractice cause of action. Upon a review of all of the papers before this Court, it does not appear that the plaintiffs would be able to raise a triable issue of fact in response to the defendants’ motion (see, Gibson v Worthington Div. of McGraw-Edison Co., 78 NY2d 1108; Ashton v Scotman, 260 AD2d 332). Altman, J.P., Feuerstein, H. Miller and Prudenti, 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 plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), dated January 17, 2001, which denied their motion to vacate their default in opposing the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ motion to vacate their default in opposing the defendants’ motion for summary judgment since they did not establish that they had a meritorious cause of action (see, CPLR 5015 [a]; Woodard v LaGuardia Hosp., 282 AD2d 529; Parker v City of New York, 272 AD2d 310). In any event, we note that the defendants made a prima facie showing in their motion for summary judgment that the plaintiffs would be unable to prove the essential elements of a legal malpractice cause of action. Upon a review of all of the papers before this Court, it does not appear that the plaintiffs would be able to raise a triable issue of fact in response to the defendants’ motion (see, Gibson v Worthington Div. of McGraw-Edison Co., 78 NY2d 1108; Ashton v Scotman, 260 AD2d 332). Altman, J.P., Feuerstein, H. Miller and Prudenti, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

290 A.D.2d 544, 737 N.Y.S.2d 297, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 757, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/obrien-v-reich-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack