Williams v. Abrams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Williams v. Abrams

200 A.D.2d 420, 606 N.Y.S.2d 218, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 259

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 11, 1994·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Myriam Altman, J.), entered September 21, 1992, dismissing the complaint as against both defendants and awarding defendant Forster, Kadish & Feldman summary judgment on its counterclaim for legal fees in the amount of $4,484.06, deemed to be appealed from the judgment of the same court and Justice, entered October 23, 1992, and, so considered, the judgment is unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs claim that defendants committed malpractice in failing to raise certain defenses in the foreclosure action was considered and rejected by the foreclosure court and the Second Department and is therefore barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel (see, Rastelli v Sutter, Moffatt, Yannelli & Zerin, 87 AD2d 865). We have considered plaintiffs other arguments, including that summary judgment should not have been granted on the counterclaim for legal fees, and find them [421] to be without merit. Concur — Carro, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman and Ross, JJ.

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

—Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Myriam Altman, J.), entered September 21, 1992, dismissing the complaint as against both defendants and awarding defendant Forster, Kadish & Feldman summary judgment on its counterclaim for legal fees in the amount of $4,484.06, deemed to be appealed from the judgment of the same court and Justice, entered October 23, 1992, and, so considered, the judgment is unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs claim that defendants committed malpractice in failing to raise certain defenses in the foreclosure action was considered and rejected by the foreclosure court and the Second Department and is therefore barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel (see, Rastelli v Sutter, Moffatt, Yannelli & Zerin, 87 AD2d 865). We have considered plaintiffs other arguments, including that summary judgment should not have been granted on the counterclaim for legal fees, and find them [421] to be without merit. Concur — Carro, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman and Ross, JJ.

Williams v. Abrams, 200 A.D.2d 420, 606 N.Y.S.2d 218, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 259 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

200 A.D.2d 420 (Williams v. Abrams) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related