Perrucci v. CIGNA Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Perrucci v. CIGNA Insurance

256 A.D.2d 87, 681 N.Y.S.2d 250, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13083

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 8, 1998·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered September 8, 1997, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A client has the right “to terminate the attorney-client relationship at any time with or without cause” (Matter of Cooperman, 83 NY2d 465, 472; see also, Demov, Morris, Levin & Shein v Glantz, 53 NY2d 553, 556). Plaintiff, who does not claim to fall within the two limited exceptions to the rule (see, Atkins & O’Brien v ISS International Serv. Sys., 252 AD2d 446, 448) may not. circumvent the general rule by recasting his cause of action as a prima facie tort (see, Ullman v Norma Kamali, Inc., 207 AD2d 691, 692; Fisher v Maxwell Communications Corp., 205 AD2d 356, 357). Plaintiff failed to preserve his current claim that leave to replead should have been granted, which in [88]*88any case would have been inappropriate (see, Ceres v Shearson Lehman Bros., 227 AD2d 222). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered September 8, 1997, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A client has the right “to terminate the attorney-client relationship at any time with or without cause” (Matter of Cooperman, 83 NY2d 465, 472; see also, Demov, Morris, Levin & Shein v Glantz, 53 NY2d 553, 556). Plaintiff, who does not claim to fall within the two limited exceptions to the rule (see, Atkins & O’Brien v ISS International Serv. Sys., 252 AD2d 446, 448) may not. circumvent the general rule by recasting his cause of action as a prima facie tort (see, Ullman v Norma Kamali, Inc., 207 AD2d 691, 692; Fisher v Maxwell Communications Corp., 205 AD2d 356, 357). Plaintiff failed to preserve his current claim that leave to replead should have been granted, which in [88]*88any case would have been inappropriate (see, Ceres v Shearson Lehman Bros., 227 AD2d 222). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Perrucci v. CIGNA Insurance, 256 A.D.2d 87, 681 N.Y.S.2d 250, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13083 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

256 A.D.2d 87 (Perrucci v. CIGNA Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related