Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mars v. Dobrish

NEW YORK SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT


October 1, 2009

ARNOLD JOSEPH MARS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT Z. DOBRISH, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS, WILLIAM BESLOW, DEFENDANT.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy S. Friedman, J.), entered October 27, 2008, which, in an action for legal malpractice, granted defendants' motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff's cross motions for partial summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Andrias, J.P., Nardelli, Moskowitz, Renwick, Freedman, JJ.

116675/03

Plaintiff's cross motions were properly denied, inasmuch as the proffered expert witness statement, even without opposition, did not establish a prima facie case of legal malpractice (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). The court also properly determined that defendants were entitled to summary judgment, where plaintiff was unable to establish that the actions complained of were negligent, rather than strategic or the result of an error in judgment (see Rosner v Paley, 65 NY2d 736, 738, [1985]; Hand v Silberman, 15 AD3d 167 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 707 [2005]), or that they caused him damage (see Pellegrino v File, 291 AD2d 60, 63 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 606 [2002]).

The court properly rejected plaintiff's claim that defendants' fees were excessive, as it was unsupported by any documents or expert opinion, and since there is no indication that plaintiff ever requested an evidentiary hearing at the time of trial (see Winter v Winter, 50 AD3d 431, 432 [2008]; Adler v Adler, 203 AD2d 81 [1994]).

We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

20091001

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.