Skura v. Hartford Fire Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Skura v. Hartford Fire Insurance

213 A.D.2d 472, 624 N.Y.S.2d 893, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2729

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

DecidedMarch 13, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 213 A.D.2d 472 (Skura v. Hartford Fire Insurance) 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

Skura v. Hartford Fire Insurance, 213 A.D.2d 472, 624 N.Y.S.2d 893, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2729 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages, inter alia, for negligence, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Newmark, J.), dated November 29, 1993, as denied the branch of her motion which was to amend the complaint by adding a cause of action sounding in legal malpractice against the defendant Robert E. Koke.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The record demonstrates that there is an absence of privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant Robert E. Koke. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly held that the proposed amendment of the complaint, which sought to add a cause of action against Koke for damages for legal malpractice, is without merit (see, Weiss v Manfredi, 83 NY2d 974). Bracken, J. P., Pizzuto, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages, inter alia, for negligence, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Newmark, J.), dated November 29, 1993, as denied the branch of her motion which was to amend the complaint by adding a cause of action sounding in legal malpractice against the defendant Robert E. Koke.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The record demonstrates that there is an absence of privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant Robert E. Koke. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly held that the proposed amendment of the complaint, which sought to add a cause of action against Koke for damages for legal malpractice, is without merit (see, Weiss v Manfredi, 83 NY2d 974). Bracken, J. P., Pizzuto, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 A.D.2d 472, 624 N.Y.S.2d 893, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2729, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/skura-v-hartford-fire-insurance-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack