Rosato v. Zuchlewski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rosato v. Zuchlewski

22 A.D.3d 381, 801 N.Y.S.2d 900

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

DecidedOctober 20, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 22 A.D.3d 381 (Rosato v. Zuchlewski) 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

Rosato v. Zuchlewski, 22 A.D.3d 381, 801 N.Y.S.2d 900 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter B. Tolub, J.), entered February 24, 2005, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint alleging legal malpractice, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The record as presently developed permits inferences to the effect that defendant attorney, while purportedly representing plaintiff in negotiations with her employer to remedy a hostile [382]*382work environment, entered into unauthorized and undocumented negotiations resulting in the termination of plaintiffs employment on unfavorable terms and in circumstances that would subsequently compel an unfavorable settlement of her employment discrimination suit. A factfinder could conclude on this record that defendant, in representing plaintiff, failed to exercise the “ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession” (McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 301 [2002] [internal quotation marks omitted]) and that such malpractice resulted in ascertainable damages (see Russo v Feder, Kaszovitz, Isaacson, Weber, Skala & Bass, 301 AD2d 63, 67 [2002]; and see Bernstein v Oppenheim & Co., 160 AD2d 428, 430 [1990]).

We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Ellerin, Williams, Catterson and Malone, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter B. Tolub, J.), entered February 24, 2005, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint alleging legal malpractice, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The record as presently developed permits inferences to the effect that defendant attorney, while purportedly representing plaintiff in negotiations with her employer to remedy a hostile [382]*382work environment, entered into unauthorized and undocumented negotiations resulting in the termination of plaintiffs employment on unfavorable terms and in circumstances that would subsequently compel an unfavorable settlement of her employment discrimination suit. A factfinder could conclude on this record that defendant, in representing plaintiff, failed to exercise the “ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession” (McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 301 [2002] [internal quotation marks omitted]) and that such malpractice resulted in ascertainable damages (see Russo v Feder, Kaszovitz, Isaacson, Weber, Skala & Bass, 301 AD2d 63, 67 [2002]; and see Bernstein v Oppenheim & Co., 160 AD2d 428, 430 [1990]).

We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Ellerin, Williams, Catterson and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.3d 381, 801 N.Y.S.2d 900, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosato-v-zuchlewski-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack