Drago v. Buonagurio
Cases that cite this one
66 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Brooks v. Zebre (Wyo. 1990)
- Bob Godfrey Pontiac, Inc. v. Roloff (Or. 1981)
- Vallinoto v. DiSandro (R.I. 1997)
- Oren Royal Oaks Venture v. Greenberg, Bernard, Weiss & Karma Inc. (Cal. 1986)
- Schunk v. Zeff & Zeff, PC (Mich. Ct. App. 1981)
- 3H ENTERPRISES, INC. v. Dwyre (District Court, N.D. New York 2001)
- Greenberg Traurig of New York, P.C. v. Moody (Tex. App. 2005)
- Greenberg Traurig of New York, P.C. v. Robert Moody, Jr., Harry J. Briscoe, Robert H. Williams and Bruce Payette (Tex. App. 2004)
- Suffield Development Associates Ltd. Partnership v. National Loan Investors, L.P. (Conn. App. Ct. 2001)
- Donald S. Engel, Engel & Engel v. Cbs, Inc., Moses & Singer, and Stanley Rothenberg (2d Cir. 1999)
- Hooper v. Gill (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1989)
- Harz v. United States (District Court, S.D. New York 1989)
- Garcia v. RODEY, DICKASON, SLOAN (N.M. 1988)
- Garcia v. Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, P.A. (N.M. 1988)
- Mozzochi v. Beck (Conn. 1987)
- Compusort, Inc. v. Goldberg (District Court, S.D. New York 1985)
- Gabrelian v. Gabrelian (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
- Hashemi v. Shack (District Court, S.D. New York 1984)
- Hertz Corp. v. Paloni (N.M. Ct. App. 1980)
- Morowitz v. Marvel (D.C. 1980)
- Bob Godfrey Pontiac, Inc. v. Roloff (Or. Ct. App. 1980)
- Jordan v. Lipsig, Sullivan, Mollen & Liapakis, P.C. (District Court, S.D. New York 1988)
- Sokol v. Sofokles (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
- Crandall v. Bernard, Overton & Russell (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
- Halperin v. Salvan (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
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.
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the order of Special Term granting defendant Brownstein’s motion to dismiss the complaint as against him for failure to state a cause of action reinstated.
The allegations of the complaint are described in the opinions at Special Term and in the Appellate Division. We agree with those courts, and for the reasons stated by them, that the complaint does not state a cause of action in negligence, abuse of process or malicious prosecution. Nor does it allege a cause of action for what is sometimes labeled a "prima facie tort”, i.e., "the intentional malicious injury to another by otherwise lawful means without economic or social justification, but solely to harm the other” (Morrison v National Broadcasting Co., 24 AD2d 284, 287, revd on other grounds 19 NY2d. 453). Whatever may be the constraints imposed by the Code of Professional Responsibility with the associated sanctions of professional discipline when baseless legal proceedings are instituted by a lawyer on behalf of a client, the courts have not recognized any liability of the lawyer to third parties therefor where the factual situations have not fallen within
Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur.
Order reversed, with costs, and the order of Special Term reinstated in a memorandum. Question certified answered in the affirmative.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.