Stanski v. Ezersky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stanski v. Ezersky

187 A.D.2d 354, 589 N.Y.S.2d 463, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13053

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

DecidedNovember 17, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 187 A.D.2d 354 (Stanski v. Ezersky) 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

Stanski v. Ezersky, 187 A.D.2d 354, 589 N.Y.S.2d 463, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13053 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol E. Huff, J.), entered April 28, 1992, which, inter alia, denied defendant-appellant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against him, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that issues of fact exist concerning the propriety of defendant-appellant’s conduct as plaintiffs’ attorney, including whether defendant misrepresented his expertise in the field of medical malpractice, misrepresented that an action had been timely commenced, misrepresented that a bill of particulars had been served, misrepresented that a discovery conference had been scheduled, and whether such misrepresentations caused plaintiffs to continue their retention of defendant until after the expiration of the Statute of Limitations.

Nor do we find merit in plaintiffs’ request for sanctions.

We have considered defendant’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Ross and Asch, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol E. Huff, J.), entered April 28, 1992, which, inter alia, denied defendant-appellant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against him, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that issues of fact exist concerning the propriety of defendant-appellant’s conduct as plaintiffs’ attorney, including whether defendant misrepresented his expertise in the field of medical malpractice, misrepresented that an action had been timely commenced, misrepresented that a bill of particulars had been served, misrepresented that a discovery conference had been scheduled, and whether such misrepresentations caused plaintiffs to continue their retention of defendant until after the expiration of the Statute of Limitations.

Nor do we find merit in plaintiffs’ request for sanctions.

We have considered defendant’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Ross and Asch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 A.D.2d 354, 589 N.Y.S.2d 463, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13053, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stanski-v-ezersky-nyappdiv-1992.