Protostorm, Inc. v. Foley & Lardner LLP

159 N.Y.S.3d 680, 202 A.D.3d 578, 2022 NY Slip Op 01107
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 17, 2022
DocketIndex No. 158501/19 Appeal No. 15333 Case No. 2021-03750
StatusPublished

This text of 159 N.Y.S.3d 680 (Protostorm, Inc. v. Foley & Lardner LLP) 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
Protostorm, Inc. v. Foley & Lardner LLP, 159 N.Y.S.3d 680, 202 A.D.3d 578, 2022 NY Slip Op 01107 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2022).

Opinion

Protostorm, Inc. v Foley & Lardner LLP (2022 NY Slip Op 01107)
Protostorm, Inc. v Foley & Lardner LLP
2022 NY Slip Op 01107
Decided on February 17, 2022
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided and Entered: February 17, 2022
Before: Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Gische, Mazzarelli, Friedman, Mendez, JJ.

Index No. 158501/19 Appeal No. 15333 Case No. 2021-03750

[*1]Protostorm, Inc., Plaintiff-Respondent,

v

Foley & Lardner LLP, et al., Defendants-Appellants.


Friedman Kaplan Seiler & Adelman LLP, New York (Philippe Adler of counsel), for appellants.

Schwartz, Ponterio & Levenson, PLLC, New York (John Ponterio of counsel), for respondent.



Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jennifer G. Schecter, J.), entered on or about October 7, 2021, which denied defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this legal malpractice action, Supreme Court correctly denied defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. Plaintiff sufficiently alleges that, but for defendants-attorneys' negligence in waiving joint and several liability against certain individual defendants in a federal action, plaintiff was unable to collect on the judgment in that action (see generally Hadden v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y. , 45 NY2d 466, 470 [1978]). Defendants' argument that the District Court's ruling in that action was a superseding cause of plaintiff's injury is unavailing (compare Pyne v Block & Assoc. , 305 AD2d 213 [1st Dept 2003]).

We have considered defendants' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: February 17, 2022



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

Related

Hadden v. Consolidated Edison Co.
382 N.E.2d 1136 (New York Court of Appeals, 1978)
Pyne v. Block & Associates
305 A.D.2d 213 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
159 N.Y.S.3d 680, 202 A.D.3d 578, 2022 NY Slip Op 01107, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/protostorm-inc-v-foley-lardner-llp-nyappdiv-2022.