Sansom Reporting, Inc. v. Feiner, Klaris & Curtis

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Sansom Reporting, Inc. v. Feiner, Klaris & Curtis

69 Misc. 2d 215, 329 N.Y.S.2d 984, 1971 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1023

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedDecember 20, 1971

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 69 Misc. 2d 215 (Sansom Reporting, Inc. v. Feiner, Klaris & Curtis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sansom Reporting, Inc. v. Feiner, Klaris & Curtis, 69 Misc. 2d 215, 329 N.Y.S.2d 984, 1971 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1023 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendants, members of a law firm, ordered from plaintiff daily copy of the minutes of a hearing before the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with a matter involving their client. Although the order blank was signed by a member of the firm in individual name it identified the case and included the name of the client. There is no showing that the attorneys intended to be personally liable for these minutes and, in these circumstances, under established law they are not responsible. (For the general rule of the law of agency see Mencher v. Weiss, 306 N. Y. 1,4 and cases there cited; for the specific rule relating to attorneys see Matter of May, 27 N Y 2d 529 and cases there cited.)

The judgment should be reversed, with $30 costs, and judgment directed for the defendants dismissing the complaint.

Concur — Gold, J. P., Quinn and Lupiano, JJ.

Judgment reversed, etc.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendants, members of a law firm, ordered from plaintiff daily copy of the minutes of a hearing before the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with a matter involving their client. Although the order blank was signed by a member of the firm in individual name it identified the case and included the name of the client. There is no showing that the attorneys intended to be personally liable for these minutes and, in these circumstances, under established law they are not responsible. (For the general rule of the law of agency see Mencher v. Weiss, 306 N. Y. 1,4 and cases there cited; for the specific rule relating to attorneys see Matter of May, 27 N Y 2d 529 and cases there cited.)

The judgment should be reversed, with $30 costs, and judgment directed for the defendants dismissing the complaint.

Concur — Gold, J. P., Quinn and Lupiano, JJ.

Judgment reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 Misc. 2d 215, 329 N.Y.S.2d 984, 1971 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1023, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sansom-reporting-inc-v-feiner-klaris-curtis-nyappterm-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack