Rothschild v. Fielding

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rothschild v. Fielding

57 A.D.2d 612, 394 N.Y.S.2d 28, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11622

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

DecidedApril 25, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 57 A.D.2d 612 (Rothschild v. Fielding) 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

Rothschild v. Fielding, 57 A.D.2d 612, 394 N.Y.S.2d 28, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11622 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for malicious interference with an attorney’s retainer agreement (the third cause of action), plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered June 23, 1976, which dismissed the third cause of action upon the grant of defendants-respondents’ motion to dismiss the said cause for failure to state a cause of action. The plaintiff-appellant died prior to the submission of this appeal and, on September 28, 1976, letters testamentary were granted to Harriet C. Rothschild, Malcolm V. Rothschild and Arthur N. Goldzweig. By letter dated February 3, 1977 counsel for defendants informed this court that he does not object to the substitution of the said executors as plaintiffs. Therefore, on the court’s own motion, the said executors of the estate of Jay Leo Rothschild, deceased, are hereby substituted as parties appellant for the said Jay Leo Rothschild and the caption is amended accordingly. Judgment affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. The allegations comprising the third cause of action are legally insufficient and the said cause of action was properly dismissed (see Ryan v Brooklyn Eye & Ear Hosp., 46 AD2d 87; Oshlag v Basile, 34 AD2d 627). Martuscello, Acting P. J., Latham, Cohalan, Rabin and Hawkins, 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 malicious interference with an attorney’s retainer agreement (the third cause of action), plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered June 23, 1976, which dismissed the third cause of action upon the grant of defendants-respondents’ motion to dismiss the said cause for failure to state a cause of action. The plaintiff-appellant died prior to the submission of this appeal and, on September 28, 1976, letters testamentary were granted to Harriet C. Rothschild, Malcolm V. Rothschild and Arthur N. Goldzweig. By letter dated February 3, 1977 counsel for defendants informed this court that he does not object to the substitution of the said executors as plaintiffs. Therefore, on the court’s own motion, the said executors of the estate of Jay Leo Rothschild, deceased, are hereby substituted as parties appellant for the said Jay Leo Rothschild and the caption is amended accordingly. Judgment affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. The allegations comprising the third cause of action are legally insufficient and the said cause of action was properly dismissed (see Ryan v Brooklyn Eye & Ear Hosp., 46 AD2d 87; Oshlag v Basile, 34 AD2d 627). Martuscello, Acting P. J., Latham, Cohalan, Rabin and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.2d 612, 394 N.Y.S.2d 28, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11622, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rothschild-v-fielding-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack