Schadoff v. Russ
Cases that cite this one
22 later published cases cite this decision.
- TCW/Camil Holding L.L.C. v. Fox Horan & Camerini L.L.P. (In re TCW/Camil Holding L.L.C.) (United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware 2005)
- Lieberman v. Green (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- Iannucci v. Kucker & Bruh, LLP (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Sang Seok NA v. Schietroma (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Harris v. Barbera (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Valley Ventures, LLC v. Haspel (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Valley Ventures, LLC v. Haspel (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Alaimo v. Mongelli (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Barbieri v. Fishoff (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Barbieri v. Fishoff (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Breytman v. Schechter (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Breytman v. Schechter (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Dempster v. Liotti (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Marino v. Lipsitz, Green, Fahringer, Roll, Salibury & Cambria, LLP (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Parimist Funding Corp. v. Suffolk Vascular Associates, PLLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Orchard Motorcycle Distributors, Inc. v. Morrison Cohen Singer & Weinstein, LLP (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Siciliano v. Forchelli & Forchelli (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Schramm v. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Merlin Biomed Asset Management, LLC v. Wolf Block Schorr & Solis-Cohen LLP (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Natale v. Jeffrey Samel & Associates (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- Lauer v. Great South Bay Seafood Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
- Caffrey v. Morse Diesel International (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for legal malpractice, the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Levitt, J.), dated August 11, 1999, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granted the plaintiffs cross motion for leave to file an amended complaint, and the plaintiff cross-appeals from so much of the same order as determined that the defendants were under no duty to advise him as to his rights and obligations under New Jersey law.
Ordered that the cross appeal is dismissed; and it is further,
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, the motion is granted, the cross motion is denied, and the complaint is dismissed; and it is further,
Ordered that the defendants are awarded one bill of costs.
The plaintiff purports to cross appeal from certain statements contained in the order denying the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Because the order denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff is not aggrieved, even though he “disagrees with the particular findings, rationale, or the opinion supporting the * * * order * * * in his favor” (Parochial Bus Sys. v Board of Educ., 60 NY2d 539, 545). Although the cross appeal is dismissed, the argu
To succeed in an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must ultimately prove, inter alia, that “the attorney was negligent” (Zeitlin v Greenberg, Margolis, Ziegler, Schwartz, Dratch, Fishman, Franzblau & Falkin, 209 AD2d 510). On their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the defendants met their burden by demonstrating that the plaintiff was unable to prove this essential element of a malpractice cause of action (see, Ippolito v McCormack, Damiani, Lowe & Mellon, 265 AD2d 303). The burden then shifted to the plaintiff to demonstrate the existence of a factual issue requiring a trial of the action (see, Wilkerson v Buonomo & Thaler, 199 AD2d 260). However, the plaintiff failed to oppose the motion with an expert affidavit delineating the appropriate “standard of professional care and skill” that the defendants were required to adhere to under the circumstances (Greene v Payne, Wood & Littlejohn, 197 AD2d 664, 666). Thus, “[t]he plaintiff’s opposing papers consisted * * * entirely of conclusory statements or unsubstantiated allegations regarding legal malpractice * * * which did not constitute sufficient proof to defeat the motion for summary judgment” (Wilkerson v Buonomo & Thaler, supra, at 260-261). Since the plaintiff failed to point to any evidence tending to show that the defendants’ alleged omissions constituted malpractice, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
The defendants’ remaining contention need not be reached in light of this determination. Mangano, P. J., Luciano, Feuerstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.