Yonkers v. Jones

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Yonkers v. Jones

292 A.D.2d 523, 739 N.Y.S.2d 277, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3029

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

DecidedMarch 18, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 292 A.D.2d 523 (Yonkers v. Jones) 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

Yonkers v. Jones, 292 A.D.2d 523, 739 N.Y.S.2d 277, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3029 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages based on legal malpractice, the defendants Stein & Sheidlower, LLP, Howard H. Stein and Mark L. Weisenreder, individually and as partners in the firm formerly known as Stein, Kass, Weisenreder & Sheidlower, and Eric S. Sheidlower appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Catterson, J.), entered January 2, 2001, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Issues of fact exist with respect to whether an attorney-client relationship existed between the defendant Matthew J. Jones and the plaintiffs, and therefore, between the defendant law firm of Stein, Kass, Weisenreder & Sheidlower, where Jones was an associate, and the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the appellants’ motion for summary judgment was properly denied.

[524]*524The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Krausman, J.P., Luciano, Adams and Townes, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages based on legal malpractice, the defendants Stein & Sheidlower, LLP, Howard H. Stein and Mark L. Weisenreder, individually and as partners in the firm formerly known as Stein, Kass, Weisenreder & Sheidlower, and Eric S. Sheidlower appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Catterson, J.), entered January 2, 2001, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Issues of fact exist with respect to whether an attorney-client relationship existed between the defendant Matthew J. Jones and the plaintiffs, and therefore, between the defendant law firm of Stein, Kass, Weisenreder & Sheidlower, where Jones was an associate, and the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the appellants’ motion for summary judgment was properly denied.

[524]*524The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Krausman, J.P., Luciano, Adams and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

292 A.D.2d 523, 739 N.Y.S.2d 277, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3029, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yonkers-v-jones-nyappdiv-2002.