Doone v. Reiser
Opinion of the Court
—In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice and breach of contract, the defendant third-party plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Levitt, J.), dated December 17, 1998, as granted the motion of the third-party defendants to dismiss the third-party complaint, and the third-party defendants cross-appeal from so much of the same order as denied their request for an award of sanctions and legal fees pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1.
Ordered that the order is modified by deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the motion which was for an award of sanctions and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, with one bill of costs payable to the plaintiffs-respondents and the third-party defendants-respondents-appellants, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a hearing in accordance herewith.
The Supreme Court correctly determined that the third-party complaint, even if liberally construed in favor of the third-party plaintiff (see, e.g., Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88), fails to allege a breach of any duty by the third-party defendants giving rise to a cognizable claim to recover damages for legal malpractice (see, e.g., Rosner v Paley, 65 NY2d 736, 738; cf., Schauer v Joyce, 54 NY2d 1, 5).
However, the Supreme Court erred in denying the third-party defendants’ request for sanctions. The entire third-party
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.