NEUMAN, DAVID v. FRANK, STUART A.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
Addressing defendants’ cross motion for partial summary-judgment, we conclude that Supreme Court properly denied the cross motion with respect to defendant, the sole appellant. “A cause of action for legal malpractice must be based on ‘the existence of an attorney-client relationship at the time of the alleged malpractice’ ” (TVGA Eng’g, Surveying, P.C. v Gallick [appeal No. 2], 45 AD3d 1252, 1256 [2007]; see Compis Servs., Inc. v Greenman, 15 AD3d 855 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 709 [2005]). The fiduciary duty of an attorney, however, “extends both to current clients and former clients and thus…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Greene v. GreeneNew York Court of Appeals · 1979
- Carter v. FantauzzoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
- Country Club Partners, LLC v. GoldmanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- Kurman v. SchnappAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- Cain v. New York Central Mutual Fire InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Prout v. VladeckDistrict Court, S.D. Illinois · 2018
- AllianceBernstein L.P. v. AthaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Giles v. Gi YiAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Smith v. Triple-O Mech., Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2024
- Smith v. Triple-O Mech., Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2024
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.