VDR Realty Corp. v. Mintz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

VDR Realty Corp. v. Mintz

167 A.D.2d 986

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

DecidedNovember 16, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 167 A.D.2d 986 (VDR Realty Corp. v. Mintz) 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

VDR Realty Corp. v. Mintz, 167 A.D.2d 986 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: Factual allegations of the [987]*987complaint to the effect that defendant attorney unreasonably delayed the prosecution of a landlord-tenant holdover proceeding and engaged in dilatory tactics, thereby increasing the attorney’s fee and causing other consequential damages, state a cause of action for legal malpractice (see, Wolstencroft v Sassower, 124 AD2d 582; 2 Hallen and Smith, Legal Malpractice § 24.15 [3d ed]; Note, Liability of an Attorney in the Conduct of Litigation, 12 Syracuse L Rev 494, 497 [1961]). Plaintiff VDR Realty Corp. may recover damages even though it was successful in the underlying action (see, Wolstencroft v Sassower, supra; Skinner v Stone, Raskin & Israel, 724 F2d 264; 76 NY Jur 2d, Malpractice, § 44). Accordingly, we modify the order by denying defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.

No issue was raised in the brief or reply brief regarding the court’s imposition of a sanction for a frivolous cross motion for leave to enter a default judgment. That issue was, therefore, waived and is not properly before the court (see, Velte v Jainew Enters., 122 AD2d 544). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Kings County, Held, J.—dismiss complaint.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Denman, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: Factual allegations of the [987]*987complaint to the effect that defendant attorney unreasonably delayed the prosecution of a landlord-tenant holdover proceeding and engaged in dilatory tactics, thereby increasing the attorney’s fee and causing other consequential damages, state a cause of action for legal malpractice (see, Wolstencroft v Sassower, 124 AD2d 582; 2 Hallen and Smith, Legal Malpractice § 24.15 [3d ed]; Note, Liability of an Attorney in the Conduct of Litigation, 12 Syracuse L Rev 494, 497 [1961]). Plaintiff VDR Realty Corp. may recover damages even though it was successful in the underlying action (see, Wolstencroft v Sassower, supra; Skinner v Stone, Raskin & Israel, 724 F2d 264; 76 NY Jur 2d, Malpractice, § 44). Accordingly, we modify the order by denying defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.

No issue was raised in the brief or reply brief regarding the court’s imposition of a sanction for a frivolous cross motion for leave to enter a default judgment. That issue was, therefore, waived and is not properly before the court (see, Velte v Jainew Enters., 122 AD2d 544). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Kings County, Held, J.—dismiss complaint.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Denman, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 A.D.2d 986, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vdr-realty-corp-v-mintz-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack