Sadkin v. Raskin & Rappoport, P. C.

271 A.D.2d 272, 707 N.Y.S.2d 400, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4103
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 13, 2000
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 271 A.D.2d 272 (Sadkin v. Raskin & Rappoport, P. C.) 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
Sadkin v. Raskin & Rappoport, P. C., 271 A.D.2d 272, 707 N.Y.S.2d 400, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4103 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered on or about January 21, 1999, which, inter alia, granted defendants-respondents’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action for legal malpractice as against them, unanimously modified, on the law, to reinstate the causes of action for legal malpractice as against the Raskin defendants (the first, third and fifth), and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

[273]*273A motion for summary judgment on one claim or defense does not provide a basis for searching the record and granting summary judgment on an unrelated claim or defense (Frank v City of New York, 211 AD2d 478, 479). Here, the Raskin defendants’ motion for summary judgment was based entirely on the argument that plaintiff could not have succeeded in the underlying wrongful death action because, under governing Bahamian law, prosecution thereof was precluded by her settlement with one of the underlying codefendants. The motion court, therefore, should not have dismissed the action as against the Raskin defendants on the grounds that plaintiff failed to present any expert evidence that Bahamian law recognizes a wrongful death claim based on products liability, or, if it does, any expert evidence that the product was defective. Accordingly, as against the Raskin defendants, we modify to reinstate plaintiffs malpractice claims, but not her breach of contract claims, which are redundant in the present circumstances (see, Levine v Lacher & Lovell-Taylor, 256 AD2d 147, 151). The malpractice claims against defendant McGrath, who was retained after the Raskin defendants’ alleged malpractice in letting the Statute of Limitations run against the legally responsible party, were properly dismissed for failure to show what standard of care defendant McGrath violated in failing to rectify the Raskin defendants’ alleged malpractice, or to adduce any other evidence of malpractice. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Wallach, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

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

Related

Christopher v. Piard
2023 NY Slip Op 05787 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Gibbons v. Alicart Rest. Group
2021 NY Slip Op 02220 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Lord v. Whelan & Curry Constr. Servs., Inc.
2018 NY Slip Op 7563 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Daimler Chrysler Ins. Co. v. Keller
2018 NY Slip Op 5999 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Shugrue v. Stahl
2017 NY Slip Op 9275 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
SchillacivSarris
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014
Schillaci v. Sarris
122 A.D.3d 1085 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
GILBERTI, JR., WILLIAM J. v. TOWN OF SPAFFORD
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014
Gilberti v. Town of Spafford
117 A.D.3d 1547 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Lee v. Ana Development Corp.
83 A.D.3d 545 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Horst v. Brown
72 A.D.3d 434 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Quizhpe v. Luvin Construction
70 A.D.3d 912 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
CDR Creances S.A.S. v. Cohen
62 A.D.3d 576 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Zone v. State
21 Misc. 3d 183 (New York State Court of Claims, 2008)
Miller v. Mott's Inc.
5 A.D.3d 1019 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Baseball Office of the Commissioner v. Marsh & McLennan, Inc.
295 A.D.2d 73 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Carrollwood Condominium Board of Managers v. Pulle
291 A.D.2d 425 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Between The Bread Realty Corp. v. Salans Hertzfeld Heilbronn Christy & Viener
290 A.D.2d 380 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
271 A.D.2d 272, 707 N.Y.S.2d 400, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4103, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sadkin-v-raskin-rappoport-p-c-nyappdiv-2000.