Simao v. Green

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Simao v. Green

213 A.D.2d 1018, 625 N.Y.S.2d 975

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

DecidedMarch 17, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 213 A.D.2d 1018 (Simao v. Green) 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

Simao v. Green, 213 A.D.2d 1018, 625 N.Y.S.2d 975 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in this legal malpractice action. The entry of a judgment in favor of defendant Green & Seifter, Attorneys, P.C., against plaintiff in a prior action to recover fees for legal services bars a malpractice action regarding those same legal services (see, Blair v Bartlett, 75 NY 150; Chisholm-Ryder Co. v Sommer & Sommer, 78 AD2d 143; see also, Harris v Stein, 207 AD2d 382; Pirog v Ingber, 203 AD2d 348; Altamore v Friedman, 193 AD2d 240, lv dismissed 83 NY2d 906, rearg denied 83 NY2d 1001; Grace & Co. v Tunstead, Schechter & Torre, 186 AD2d 15; Siegel, NY Prac § 464, at 701-702 [2d ed]). We reject the contention of plaintiff that our decision in Chisholm-Ryder Co. was implicitly overruled by the Court of Appeals in Kaufman v Lilly & Co. (65 NY2d 449) and subsequent decisions of that Court that address the issue of collateral estoppel (see, e.g., D’Arata v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 76 NY2d 659; Matter of Halyalkar v Board of Regents, 72 NY2d 261). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Murphy, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Callahan, Doerr and Davis, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in this legal malpractice action. The entry of a judgment in favor of defendant Green & Seifter, Attorneys, P.C., against plaintiff in a prior action to recover fees for legal services bars a malpractice action regarding those same legal services (see, Blair v Bartlett, 75 NY 150; Chisholm-Ryder Co. v Sommer & Sommer, 78 AD2d 143; see also, Harris v Stein, 207 AD2d 382; Pirog v Ingber, 203 AD2d 348; Altamore v Friedman, 193 AD2d 240, lv dismissed 83 NY2d 906, rearg denied 83 NY2d 1001; Grace & Co. v Tunstead, Schechter & Torre, 186 AD2d 15; Siegel, NY Prac § 464, at 701-702 [2d ed]). We reject the contention of plaintiff that our decision in Chisholm-Ryder Co. was implicitly overruled by the Court of Appeals in Kaufman v Lilly & Co. (65 NY2d 449) and subsequent decisions of that Court that address the issue of collateral estoppel (see, e.g., D’Arata v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 76 NY2d 659; Matter of Halyalkar v Board of Regents, 72 NY2d 261). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Murphy, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Callahan, Doerr and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 A.D.2d 1018, 625 N.Y.S.2d 975, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/simao-v-green-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack