Patel v. Cooper

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Patel v. Cooper

244 A.D.2d 265, 664 N.Y.S.2d 295, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11693

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

DecidedNovember 20, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 244 A.D.2d 265 (Patel v. Cooper) 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

Patel v. Cooper, 244 A.D.2d 265, 664 N.Y.S.2d 295, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11693 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered January 15, 1997, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing this complaint in an action for legal malpractice, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiffs claims of defendant’s malpractice were raised and rejected by this Court in his disbarment proceeding (Matter of Patel, 209 AD2d 100, 118, rearg denied 219 AD2d 510, appeal dismissed 87 NY2d 893, lv denied 87 NY2d 1041), and he is collaterally estopped from asserting them again in this action (see, D’Arata v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 76 NY2d 659, 664). We have considered plaintiffs other claims, including bias on the part on the IAS Court warranting recusal, and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Williams, Mazzarelli, Andrias and Colabella, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered January 15, 1997, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing this complaint in an action for legal malpractice, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiffs claims of defendant’s malpractice were raised and rejected by this Court in his disbarment proceeding (Matter of Patel, 209 AD2d 100, 118, rearg denied 219 AD2d 510, appeal dismissed 87 NY2d 893, lv denied 87 NY2d 1041), and he is collaterally estopped from asserting them again in this action (see, D’Arata v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 76 NY2d 659, 664). We have considered plaintiffs other claims, including bias on the part on the IAS Court warranting recusal, and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Williams, Mazzarelli, Andrias and Colabella, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D.2d 265, 664 N.Y.S.2d 295, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11693, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patel-v-cooper-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack