Sarasota, Inc. v. Kurzman & Eisenberg, LLP

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sarasota, Inc. v. Kurzman & Eisenberg, LLP

28 A.D.3d 237, 814 N.Y.S.2d 94

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

DecidedApril 6, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 28 A.D.3d 237 (Sarasota, Inc. v. Kurzman & Eisenberg, LLP) 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

Sarasota, Inc. v. Kurzman & Eisenberg, LLP, 28 A.D.3d 237, 814 N.Y.S.2d 94 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marilyn Shafer, J.), entered January 6, 2005, which, inter alia, denied defendants-appellants’ motion to dismiss the causes of action for breach of contract and violation of Judiciary Law § 487, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

There is at least an issue of fact as to whether the contract claim was viable as a promise to achieve a particular result separate from the breach of general professional standards in defendants’ field and thus not duplicative of the legal malpractice cause of action (see Matter of R.M. Kliment & Frances Halsband, Architects [McKinsey & Co., Inc.], 3 NY3d 538, 542-543 [2004]; Senise v Mackasek, 227 AD2d 184 [1996]). The Judiciary Law § 487 claim was not conclusory, as it was supported by the previously sustained allegations of fraud, and was based on conduct in a proceeding to which plaintiff was a party, rather than conduct taking place before or after the proceeding (cf. Stanski v Ezersky, 228 AD2d 311, 313 [1996], lv denied 89 NY2d 805 [1996]; Bankers Trust Co. v Cerrato, Sweeney, Cohn, Stahl & Vaccaro, 187 AD2d 384, 386 [1992]). Whether the alleged deceit meets the standard required by Judiciary Law § 487 subjecting defendants to treble damages (see Schindler v Issler & Schrage, 262 AD2d 226 [1999], lv dismissed 94 NY2d 791 [1999]) presented an issue of fact.

[238]*238We have considered the parties’ other contentions for affirmative relief and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Marlow, Williams and McGuire, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marilyn Shafer, J.), entered January 6, 2005, which, inter alia, denied defendants-appellants’ motion to dismiss the causes of action for breach of contract and violation of Judiciary Law § 487, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

There is at least an issue of fact as to whether the contract claim was viable as a promise to achieve a particular result separate from the breach of general professional standards in defendants’ field and thus not duplicative of the legal malpractice cause of action (see Matter of R.M. Kliment & Frances Halsband, Architects [McKinsey & Co., Inc.], 3 NY3d 538, 542-543 [2004]; Senise v Mackasek, 227 AD2d 184 [1996]). The Judiciary Law § 487 claim was not conclusory, as it was supported by the previously sustained allegations of fraud, and was based on conduct in a proceeding to which plaintiff was a party, rather than conduct taking place before or after the proceeding (cf. Stanski v Ezersky, 228 AD2d 311, 313 [1996], lv denied 89 NY2d 805 [1996]; Bankers Trust Co. v Cerrato, Sweeney, Cohn, Stahl & Vaccaro, 187 AD2d 384, 386 [1992]). Whether the alleged deceit meets the standard required by Judiciary Law § 487 subjecting defendants to treble damages (see Schindler v Issler & Schrage, 262 AD2d 226 [1999], lv dismissed 94 NY2d 791 [1999]) presented an issue of fact.

[238]*238We have considered the parties’ other contentions for affirmative relief and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Marlow, Williams and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 A.D.3d 237, 814 N.Y.S.2d 94, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sarasota-inc-v-kurzman-eisenberg-llp-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack