Schleikorn v. Trachtenberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schleikorn v. Trachtenberg

228 A.D.2d 489, 643 N.Y.2d 1002, 643 N.Y.S.2d 1002, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6615

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

DecidedJune 10, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 228 A.D.2d 489 (Schleikorn v. Trachtenberg) 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

Schleikorn v. Trachtenberg, 228 A.D.2d 489, 643 N.Y.2d 1002, 643 N.Y.S.2d 1002, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6615 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

[490]*490The court correctly determined that the defendant failed to make a prima facie showing that he was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the plaintiffs causes of action sounding in legal malpractice (see, Andrews Beverage Distrib. v Stern, 215 AD2d 706; Lauer v Rapp, 190 AD2d 778). The defendant, however, is entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiffs breach of contract cause of action. The defendant’s affidavit in support of his motion established that the plaintiff ratified the defendant’s acts (see, Ordinary Guy v Juniper Releasing, 199 AD2d 251, 252; Sheindlin v Sheindlin, 88 AD2d 930, 931), and the plaintiff failed to submit any evidence in admissible form to refute this. Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

[490]*490The court correctly determined that the defendant failed to make a prima facie showing that he was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the plaintiffs causes of action sounding in legal malpractice (see, Andrews Beverage Distrib. v Stern, 215 AD2d 706; Lauer v Rapp, 190 AD2d 778). The defendant, however, is entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiffs breach of contract cause of action. The defendant’s affidavit in support of his motion established that the plaintiff ratified the defendant’s acts (see, Ordinary Guy v Juniper Releasing, 199 AD2d 251, 252; Sheindlin v Sheindlin, 88 AD2d 930, 931), and the plaintiff failed to submit any evidence in admissible form to refute this. Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 A.D.2d 489, 643 N.Y.2d 1002, 643 N.Y.S.2d 1002, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6615, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schleikorn-v-trachtenberg-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack