Se Dae Yang v. Quinn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Se Dae Yang v. Quinn

255 A.D.2d 574, 680 N.Y.S.2d 878, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12844

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

DecidedNovember 30, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 255 A.D.2d 574 (Se Dae Yang v. Quinn) 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

Se Dae Yang v. Quinn, 255 A.D.2d 574, 680 N.Y.S.2d 878, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12844 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for [575]*575legal malpractice, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated May 15, 1997, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Because the plaintiffs could not have demonstrated a meritorious defense to the foreclosure action in which they were represented by the defendant attorney (see, Se Dae Yang v Korea First Bank, 247 AD2d 237), they have not incurred damages as a result of their attorney’s failure to serve and file and answer, which resulted in their default in the foreclosure action and entry of a judgment against them (see, Zasso v Maher, 226 AD2d 366). Accordingly, the instant complaint was properly dismissed. O’Brien, J. P., Pizzuto, Joy and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for [575]*575legal malpractice, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated May 15, 1997, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Because the plaintiffs could not have demonstrated a meritorious defense to the foreclosure action in which they were represented by the defendant attorney (see, Se Dae Yang v Korea First Bank, 247 AD2d 237), they have not incurred damages as a result of their attorney’s failure to serve and file and answer, which resulted in their default in the foreclosure action and entry of a judgment against them (see, Zasso v Maher, 226 AD2d 366). Accordingly, the instant complaint was properly dismissed. O’Brien, J. P., Pizzuto, Joy and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D.2d 574, 680 N.Y.S.2d 878, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12844, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/se-dae-yang-v-quinn-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack