Pfeffer v. Pernick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pfeffer v. Pernick

268 A.D.2d 262, 700 N.Y.S.2d 816, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 346

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

DecidedJanuary 11, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 268 A.D.2d 262 (Pfeffer v. Pernick) 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

Pfeffer v. Pernick, 268 A.D.2d 262, 700 N.Y.S.2d 816, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 346 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York [263]*263County (Carol Huff, J.), entered October 8, 1998, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s legal malpractice claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s legal malpractice claim since issues of fact exist as to whether plaintiff’s damages were proximately caused by her own or defendants’ conduct (see, Estate of Nevelson v Carro, Spanbock, Kaster & Cuiffo, 259 AD2d 282). In addition, we find that an issue of fact exists with respect to whether plaintiff’s misconduct in eavesdropping on the conversations of her employers rose to the level of intentional participation in a criminal act so serious as to warrant denial of recovery (see, Barker v Kallash, 63 NY2d 19, 25-26; Symone T. v Lieber, 205 AD2d 609).

We have considered defendants’ remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Concur—Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Lerner, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York [263]*263County (Carol Huff, J.), entered October 8, 1998, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s legal malpractice claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s legal malpractice claim since issues of fact exist as to whether plaintiff’s damages were proximately caused by her own or defendants’ conduct (see, Estate of Nevelson v Carro, Spanbock, Kaster & Cuiffo, 259 AD2d 282). In addition, we find that an issue of fact exists with respect to whether plaintiff’s misconduct in eavesdropping on the conversations of her employers rose to the level of intentional participation in a criminal act so serious as to warrant denial of recovery (see, Barker v Kallash, 63 NY2d 19, 25-26; Symone T. v Lieber, 205 AD2d 609).

We have considered defendants’ remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Concur—Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Lerner, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 A.D.2d 262, 700 N.Y.S.2d 816, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 346, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pfeffer-v-pernick-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack