Sable v. Surowitz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sable v. Surowitz

57 A.D.2d 781, 394 N.Y.S.2d 207, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11946

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

DecidedMay 17, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 57 A.D.2d 781 (Sable v. Surowitz) 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

Sable v. Surowitz, 57 A.D.2d 781, 394 N.Y.S.2d 207, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11946 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered March 11, 1977, denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. While the contention of the plaintiff as to the area of malpractice alleged against the defendants, her former attorneys, seems nebulous (see Katz Agency v Heftel Broadcasting Corp., 56 AD2d 758), there are some factual matters as set forth in the plaintiff’s bill of particulars as to which there are differences, such as whether the agreement negotiated by the defendants on behalf of the plaintiff as executrix with the auction gallery was to provide for the sale of the art collection "as is” or not, and whether the defendants were instructed to obtain such language in the agreement. There is also the question of what the situation is with respect to estate taxes for which a tax return was prepared on behalf of the estate by the defendants. Under the circumstances, a motion for summary judgment is, at least, premature at this time. In another action, the defendants are suing the plaintiff for additional counsel fees. It would be best if these two actions were consolidated and heard together. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Evans, Capozzoli, Lane and Yesawich, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered March 11, 1977, denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. While the contention of the plaintiff as to the area of malpractice alleged against the defendants, her former attorneys, seems nebulous (see Katz Agency v Heftel Broadcasting Corp., 56 AD2d 758), there are some factual matters as set forth in the plaintiff’s bill of particulars as to which there are differences, such as whether the agreement negotiated by the defendants on behalf of the plaintiff as executrix with the auction gallery was to provide for the sale of the art collection "as is” or not, and whether the defendants were instructed to obtain such language in the agreement. There is also the question of what the situation is with respect to estate taxes for which a tax return was prepared on behalf of the estate by the defendants. Under the circumstances, a motion for summary judgment is, at least, premature at this time. In another action, the defendants are suing the plaintiff for additional counsel fees. It would be best if these two actions were consolidated and heard together. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Evans, Capozzoli, Lane and Yesawich, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.2d 781, 394 N.Y.S.2d 207, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11946, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sable-v-surowitz-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack