S.A.F. LaSala Corp. v. Levy & Tolman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

S.A.F. LaSala Corp. v. Levy & Tolman

210 A.D.2d 212, 619 N.Y.S.2d 966, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12349

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

DecidedDecember 5, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 210 A.D.2d 212 (S.A.F. LaSala Corp. v. Levy & Tolman) 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

S.A.F. LaSala Corp. v. Levy & Tolman, 210 A.D.2d 212, 619 N.Y.S.2d 966, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12349 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages, inter alia, for legal malpractice and overcharges for services rendered, the plaintiff appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Burrows, J.), entered June 8, 1993, which granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7).

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The various claims asserted by the plaintiff failed to state cognizable causes of action (see, CPLR 3211 [a] [7]), were brought prematurely, or failed to allege any damages resulting from the defendants’ allegedly tortious conduct (see, Lauer v Rapp, 190 AD2d 778). Thompson, J. P., Miller, O’Brien, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages, inter alia, for legal malpractice and overcharges for services rendered, the plaintiff appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Burrows, J.), entered June 8, 1993, which granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7).

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The various claims asserted by the plaintiff failed to state cognizable causes of action (see, CPLR 3211 [a] [7]), were brought prematurely, or failed to allege any damages resulting from the defendants’ allegedly tortious conduct (see, Lauer v Rapp, 190 AD2d 778). Thompson, J. P., Miller, O’Brien, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 A.D.2d 212, 619 N.Y.S.2d 966, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12349, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saf-lasala-corp-v-levy-tolman-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack