Sherbak v. Doughty

72 A.D.2d 548, 420 N.Y.S.2d 724, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13609
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 9, 1979
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 72 A.D.2d 548 (Sherbak v. Doughty) 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
Sherbak v. Doughty, 72 A.D.2d 548, 420 N.Y.S.2d 724, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13609 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice and the intentional infliction of emotional distress, defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, entered June 6, 1978, upon a jury verdict, which was in favor of plaintiffs and against him. Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the cause of action alleging the intentional infliction of emotional distress is dismissed and a new trial is granted as to the cause of action for legal malpractice with respect to the issue of damages only, unless, within 20 days after entry of the order to be made hereon, plaintiffs shall serve and file in the office of the clerk of the trial court written stipulations consenting to reduce the verdict in their favor to $7,500, in which event, the judgment, as so reduced and amended, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Although the evidence adduced at trial supports a jury verdict for legal malpractice against defendant, an attorney, who undertook to represent both sides in a real estate transaction and then took actions inimical to plaintiffs’ interests, including the institution of a lawsuit against them, his actions were not so outrageous or extreme as to warrant a judgment for the intentional infliction of emotional disturbance (see Drago v Buonagurio, 46 NY2d 778; Fischer v Maloney, 43 NY2d 553). The jury’s verdict of $30,000 with respect to the malpractice action was excessive. Accordingly, a new trial on the issue of damages only is required unless plaintiffs agree to accept $7,500 as a fair and proper evaluation of damages suffered. Damiani, J. P., O’Connor, Lazer and Rabin, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Williams v. Callaghan
938 F. Supp. 46 (District of Columbia, 1996)
Zambito v. Ryan
125 A.D.2d 462 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
Green v. Leibowitz
118 A.D.2d 756 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
Langley v. Langley
118 Misc. 2d 559 (New York Supreme Court, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
72 A.D.2d 548, 420 N.Y.S.2d 724, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13609, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sherbak-v-doughty-nyappdiv-1979.