Roemer v. Levy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Roemer v. Levy

280 A.D.2d 592, 720 N.Y.S.2d 814, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1661

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

DecidedFebruary 20, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 280 A.D.2d 592 (Roemer v. Levy) 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

Roemer v. Levy, 280 A.D.2d 592, 720 N.Y.S.2d 814, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1661 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Steinhardt, J.), dated August 9, 2000, which denied his motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

To state a cause of action sounding in legal malpractice, a plaintiff must show that the defendant failed to exercise that degree of care, skill, and diligence commonly exercised by an ordinary member of the legal community, and that but for the attorney’s negligence, the plaintiff would have prevailed in the underlying action (see, Kozmol v Law Firm of Allen L. Rothenberg, 241 AD2d 484; Platt v Portnoy, 220 AD2d 652). After the defendant made out a prima facie case that he was entitled to summary judgment, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue qf fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the [593]*593defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Ritter, J. P., Krausman, Friedmann and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Steinhardt, J.), dated August 9, 2000, which denied his motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

To state a cause of action sounding in legal malpractice, a plaintiff must show that the defendant failed to exercise that degree of care, skill, and diligence commonly exercised by an ordinary member of the legal community, and that but for the attorney’s negligence, the plaintiff would have prevailed in the underlying action (see, Kozmol v Law Firm of Allen L. Rothenberg, 241 AD2d 484; Platt v Portnoy, 220 AD2d 652). After the defendant made out a prima facie case that he was entitled to summary judgment, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue qf fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the [593]*593defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Ritter, J. P., Krausman, Friedmann and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 592, 720 N.Y.S.2d 814, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1661, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roemer-v-levy-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack