Silva v. Worby, Groner, Edelman, LLP

54 A.D.3d 634, 864 N.Y.S.2d 23
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided September 25, 2008·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson, Jr., J.), entered on or about October 15, 2007, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied and the complaint reinstated.

The conflicting deposition testimony and affidavits submitted by the parties present a material issue of fact whether plaintiff instructed defendants to attempt to settle the case underlying this legal malpractice action for $1.25 million (see Longhorn v K. Solo Serv. Corp., 302 AD2d 307 [2003]). As the record indicates that defense counsel in the underlying case was authorized and prepared to settle that case for the requested amount, a finding that plaintiff so instructed defendants would show a settlement opportunity lost through their malpractice (see [635]*635Masterson v Clark, 243 AD2d 411 [1997]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Friedman, Williams and Moskowitz, JJ.

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

Silva v. Worby, Groner, Edelman, LLP, 54 A.D.3d 634, 864 N.Y.S.2d 23 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

54 A.D.3d 634 (Silva v. Worby, Groner, Edelman, LLP) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gershkovich v. Miller, Rosado & Algios, LLP
96 A.D.3d 716 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Scarborough v. Napoli, Kaiser & Bern, LLP
63 A.D.3d 1531 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)