Waggoner v. Caruso

New York Court of Appeals

Waggoner v. Caruso

929 N.E.2d 396, 14 N.Y.3d 874, 903 N.Y.S.2d 333

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 11, 2010

Docket145 SSM 17

StatusPublished

Cited by18 cases

This text of 929 N.E.2d 396 (Waggoner v. Caruso) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Waggoner v. Caruso, 929 N.E.2d 396, 14 N.Y.3d 874, 903 N.Y.S.2d 333 (N.Y. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question not answered upon the ground that it is unnecessary.

The Appellate Division properly held that plaintiffs J. Virgil Waggoner and J.VW. Investment Ltd. of Dominica did not state a claim for legal malpractice insofar as they failed to allege that, but for defendants’ alleged malpractice, they would have successfully recovered the $10 million investment in an underlying proceeding (see Davis v Klein, 88 NY2d 1008, 1009-1010 [1996]). The court also properly dismissed plaintiffs’ claim in this case for breach of fiduciary duty as duplicative of the claim for legal malpractice.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, etc.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question not answered upon the ground that it is unnecessary.

The Appellate Division properly held that plaintiffs J. Virgil Waggoner and J.VW. Investment Ltd. of Dominica did not state a claim for legal malpractice insofar as they failed to allege that, but for defendants’ alleged malpractice, they would have successfully recovered the $10 million investment in an underlying proceeding (see Davis v Klein, 88 NY2d 1008, 1009-1010 [1996]). The court also properly dismissed plaintiffs’ claim in this case for breach of fiduciary duty as duplicative of the claim for legal malpractice.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

929 N.E.2d 396, 14 N.Y.3d 874, 903 N.Y.S.2d 333, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/waggoner-v-caruso-ny-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack