Salerno v. Teresi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Salerno v. Teresi

176 A.D.2d 985, 574 N.Y.S.2d 1017, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12952

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

DecidedOctober 3, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 176 A.D.2d 985 (Salerno v. Teresi) 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

Salerno v. Teresi, 176 A.D.2d 985, 574 N.Y.S.2d 1017, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12952 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal from that part of an order of the Supreme Court (Harris, J.), entered June 14, 1990 in Albany County, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for, inter alia, failure to state a cause of action.

In a recent decision of this court we stated that " 'absent fraud, collusion, malicious acts or special circumstances, an attorney is not liable to third parties, not in privity, for harm caused by professional negligence’ ” (Deeb v Johnson, 170 AD2d 865, quoting Estate of Spivey v Pulley, 138 AD2d 563, 564). Accordingly, as there was no privity between plaintiff and defendants, plaintiff’s complaint was properly dismissed [986]*986for failure to state a cause of action (see, Deeb v Johnson, supra). Having reached this conclusion, we need not address any remaining issues.

Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Yesawich Jr. and Mercure, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

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

— Appeal from that part of an order of the Supreme Court (Harris, J.), entered June 14, 1990 in Albany County, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for, inter alia, failure to state a cause of action.

In a recent decision of this court we stated that " 'absent fraud, collusion, malicious acts or special circumstances, an attorney is not liable to third parties, not in privity, for harm caused by professional negligence’ ” (Deeb v Johnson, 170 AD2d 865, quoting Estate of Spivey v Pulley, 138 AD2d 563, 564). Accordingly, as there was no privity between plaintiff and defendants, plaintiff’s complaint was properly dismissed [986]*986for failure to state a cause of action (see, Deeb v Johnson, supra). Having reached this conclusion, we need not address any remaining issues.

Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Yesawich Jr. and Mercure, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

176 A.D.2d 985, 574 N.Y.S.2d 1017, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12952, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/salerno-v-teresi-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack