Perini v. Perini

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Perini v. Perini

154 A.D.2d 360, 546 N.Y.S.2d 971, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12259

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

DecidedOctober 2, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 154 A.D.2d 360 (Perini v. Perini) 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

Perini v. Perini, 154 A.D.2d 360, 546 N.Y.S.2d 971, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12259 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— In consolidated actions to (1) foreclose a mortgage (action No. 1) and (2) recover damages for legal malpractice (action No. 2), the plaintiff in action No. 2 appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Stolarik, J.), entered December 11, 1987, as granted the defendants judgment as a matter of law at the close of the evidence at the trial.

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

Loretta Perini, the plaintiff in action No. 2, sought to recover damages against the attorney who prepared the separation agreement which she and her former husband ultimately endorsed. The plaintiff alleged, inter alia, that the attorney failed to adequately apprise her of her rights with respect to the marital property and that the attorney was, therefore, guilty of legal malpractice.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contentions, we find that the trial court properly dismissed the complaint in action No. 2, since the plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case of legal malpractice (see, Mendoza v Schlossman, 87 AD2d 606; Kerson Co. v Shayne, Dachs, Weiss, Kolbrenner, Levy, 59 AD2d 551, affd 45 NY2d 730). Specifically, the plaintiff failed to adduce any proof that the alleged omissions on the part of the attorney proximately caused any losses or injuries. Eiber, J. P., Harwood, Balletta and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

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

— In consolidated actions to (1) foreclose a mortgage (action No. 1) and (2) recover damages for legal malpractice (action No. 2), the plaintiff in action No. 2 appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Stolarik, J.), entered December 11, 1987, as granted the defendants judgment as a matter of law at the close of the evidence at the trial.

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

Loretta Perini, the plaintiff in action No. 2, sought to recover damages against the attorney who prepared the separation agreement which she and her former husband ultimately endorsed. The plaintiff alleged, inter alia, that the attorney failed to adequately apprise her of her rights with respect to the marital property and that the attorney was, therefore, guilty of legal malpractice.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contentions, we find that the trial court properly dismissed the complaint in action No. 2, since the plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case of legal malpractice (see, Mendoza v Schlossman, 87 AD2d 606; Kerson Co. v Shayne, Dachs, Weiss, Kolbrenner, Levy, 59 AD2d 551, affd 45 NY2d 730). Specifically, the plaintiff failed to adduce any proof that the alleged omissions on the part of the attorney proximately caused any losses or injuries. Eiber, J. P., Harwood, Balletta and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 A.D.2d 360, 546 N.Y.S.2d 971, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12259, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perini-v-perini-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack