Postel v. Jaffe & Segal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Postel v. Jaffe & Segal

237 A.D.2d 127, 654 N.Y.S.2d 25, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2204

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

DecidedMarch 6, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 237 A.D.2d 127 (Postel v. Jaffe & Segal) 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

Postel v. Jaffe & Segal, 237 A.D.2d 127, 654 N.Y.S.2d 25, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2204 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered June 10,1996, which denied plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the default resulting in the dismissal of this action for legal malpractice, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Vacatur of plaintiffs’ default was properly denied because, having failed to set forth the names of the experts who would have testified and the substance of their testimony, plaintiffs’ claim of damages remains speculative (compare, Drucker v Mige Assocs. II, 225 AD2d 427, 428-429, lv denied 88 NY2d 807, with Campbell v Rogers & Wells, 218 AD2d 576, 580). Further, absent a showing of actual damages, there can be no cause of action for legal malpractice (see, Zarin v Reid & Priest, 184 AD2d 385, 387), or any other tort. Plaintiffs’ pattern of evading discovery orders is evident from the record, and is further justification for the sanction of dismissal (see, Berman v Szpilzinger, 180 AD2d 612). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered June 10,1996, which denied plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the default resulting in the dismissal of this action for legal malpractice, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Vacatur of plaintiffs’ default was properly denied because, having failed to set forth the names of the experts who would have testified and the substance of their testimony, plaintiffs’ claim of damages remains speculative (compare, Drucker v Mige Assocs. II, 225 AD2d 427, 428-429, lv denied 88 NY2d 807, with Campbell v Rogers & Wells, 218 AD2d 576, 580). Further, absent a showing of actual damages, there can be no cause of action for legal malpractice (see, Zarin v Reid & Priest, 184 AD2d 385, 387), or any other tort. Plaintiffs’ pattern of evading discovery orders is evident from the record, and is further justification for the sanction of dismissal (see, Berman v Szpilzinger, 180 AD2d 612). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

237 A.D.2d 127, 654 N.Y.S.2d 25, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2204, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/postel-v-jaffe-segal-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack