Popescu v. McCarthy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Popescu v. McCarthy

271 A.D.2d 204, 706 N.Y.S.2d 98, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3861

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

DecidedApril 4, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 271 A.D.2d 204 (Popescu v. McCarthy) 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

Popescu v. McCarthy, 271 A.D.2d 204, 706 N.Y.S.2d 98, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3861 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard Silver, J.), entered April 27, 1999, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In this legal malpractice action plaintiffs claim that defendants, while representing them in an action to recover for personal injuries, were negligent in preparing their case and that the alleged negligence resulted in an inadequate settlement. We, however, perceive no ground for plaintiffs’ contention that defendants were negligent, much less that but for [205]*205defendants’ negligence plaintiffs’ recovery in the personal injury action would have been greater (see, Tinter v Rapaport, 253 AD2d 588, 590). It is plain from the record that the settlement of $2,950,000 negotiated by defendants at the beginning stages of the trial of the personal injury action was fair in light of the contested liability issues and that the settlement was knowingly and voluntarily entered into by plaintiffs. We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Nardelli, Tom, Mazzarelli and Wallach, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard Silver, J.), entered April 27, 1999, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In this legal malpractice action plaintiffs claim that defendants, while representing them in an action to recover for personal injuries, were negligent in preparing their case and that the alleged negligence resulted in an inadequate settlement. We, however, perceive no ground for plaintiffs’ contention that defendants were negligent, much less that but for [205]*205defendants’ negligence plaintiffs’ recovery in the personal injury action would have been greater (see, Tinter v Rapaport, 253 AD2d 588, 590). It is plain from the record that the settlement of $2,950,000 negotiated by defendants at the beginning stages of the trial of the personal injury action was fair in light of the contested liability issues and that the settlement was knowingly and voluntarily entered into by plaintiffs. We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Nardelli, Tom, Mazzarelli and Wallach, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 204, 706 N.Y.S.2d 98, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3861, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/popescu-v-mccarthy-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack