Legal Opinion

Maksimiak v. Schwartzapfel Novick Truhowsky Marcus, P.C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided March 29, 2011PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The motion court properly determined that plaintiff failed to state a cause of action for legal malpractice. The documentary evidence established that plaintiffs successor counsel had sufficient time and opportunity to adequately protect plaintiffs rights. Indeed, plaintiffs English counsel timely commenced a lawsuit in England based on the underlying motor vehicle accident that occurred in England. Accordingly, defendants’ alleged negligence cannot be considered a proximate cause of plaintiffs alleged injury (see Somma v Dansker & Aspromonte Assoc., 44 AD3d 376 [2007]).

The court also…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Havell v. IslamAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002
  2. Somma v. Dansker & Aspromonte AssociatesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Prout v. VladeckDistrict Court, S.D. Illinois · 2018
  2. Shaffer v. GilbergAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
  3. Alden v. BrindisiAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
  4. Hirsch v. FinkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
  5. ALDEN, ELIZABETH v. BRINDISI, MURAD & BRINDISI-PEARLMANAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API