New York Court of Appeals, 1978

Fried v. Bower & Gardner

New York Court of Appeals · Decided December 7, 1978

46 N.Y.2d 765; 386 N.E.2d 258; 413 N.Y.S.2d 650; 1978 N.Y. LEXIS 2458

Cases that cite this one

17 later published cases cite this decision.

Fried v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1987)
Cawein v. Flintkote Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
Marquez v. Presbyterian Hospital (New York Supreme Court 1994)
Queens Neurology, P.C. v. Allstate Ins. Co. (New York Supreme Court, Kings County 2024)
IME Watchdog, Inc. v. Baker, McEvoy, Morrissey & Moskovits, P.C. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Anderson-Haider v. State (N.Y. Ct. Cl. 2010)
Drooker v. South Nassau Communities Hospital (New York Supreme Court 1998)
Nihalani v. Tekhomes, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
Rennie v. Barbarosa Transport, Ltd. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
Bonghi v. Firstcent Shopping Center, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
Discenza v. New York Racing Ass'n (Civil Court of the City of New York 1986)
Marchi Jaffe Cohen Crystal Rosner & Katz v. All-Star Video Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
Herman v. Malamed (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
Upham v. Lowry (New York Supreme Court 1985)
National Bank of North America v. Alizio (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
Zuckerman v. City of New York (N.Y. 1980)
Cornell University v. Dickerson (New York Supreme Court 1979)

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Since appellant’s belief in the justice of his underlying cause is obviously sincere, it is understandable that he finds the *767zealousness with which the respondents represented their client disturbing, and even offensive. But the appellant must also appreciate that an attorney at law, owing no fiduciary obligation to his adversary’s client, is free, if not obligated, so long as the steps he takes are within proper professional bounds, to carry out his responsibilities to his own client with full adversarial vigor. Examination of the record, as well as the voluminous file of prior proceedings requisitioned at the request of the appellant, discloses no motivation or conduct on respondents’ part that was not so contained. Neither appellant’s expressions of opinion to the contrary, though genuinely held, nor the conclusory allegations with which he structured both his complaint and his opposing papers could substitute for the showing of evidentiary facts required to withstand the motion for summary judgment (Capelin Assoc. v Globe Mfg. Corp., 34 NY2d 338, 341). Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.