Robinson v. Jacoby & Meyers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Robinson v. Jacoby & Meyers

167 A.D.2d 134, 561 N.Y.S.2d 221, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13048

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

DecidedNovember 1, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 167 A.D.2d 134 (Robinson v. Jacoby & Meyers) 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

Robinson v. Jacoby & Meyers, 167 A.D.2d 134, 561 N.Y.S.2d 221, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13048 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Fingerhood, J.), entered on or about April 28, 1989, which granted the motion of defendants Jacoby & Meyers, Esqs. for an order pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) dismissing the first two causes of action of plaintiffs complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for alleged legal malpractice. The complaint fails to allege any specific facts to show that the defendant attorneys acted negligently. Rather, plaintiff alleges only that the process server hired to serve process on plaintiffs wife in the divorce action in connection with which defendants were retained never served plaintiffs wife yet forwarded an affidavit of service to defendants. The allegations that defendants were thereafter negligent are wholly conclusory, and are therefore legally insufficient to charge an attorney with negligence and malpractice. (Parker Chapin Flattau & Klimpl v Daelen Corp., 59 AD2d 375, 378.) Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Milonas, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Fingerhood, J.), entered on or about April 28, 1989, which granted the motion of defendants Jacoby & Meyers, Esqs. for an order pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) dismissing the first two causes of action of plaintiffs complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for alleged legal malpractice. The complaint fails to allege any specific facts to show that the defendant attorneys acted negligently. Rather, plaintiff alleges only that the process server hired to serve process on plaintiffs wife in the divorce action in connection with which defendants were retained never served plaintiffs wife yet forwarded an affidavit of service to defendants. The allegations that defendants were thereafter negligent are wholly conclusory, and are therefore legally insufficient to charge an attorney with negligence and malpractice. (Parker Chapin Flattau & Klimpl v Daelen Corp., 59 AD2d 375, 378.) Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Milonas, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 A.D.2d 134, 561 N.Y.S.2d 221, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13048, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robinson-v-jacoby-meyers-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack