Legal Opinion
Wolstencroft v. Sassower
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided November 3, 1986PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
The plaintiff’s complaint states a valid cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice in that it alleges that the defendant neglected to defend a British action (see, Siegel v Kranis, 29 AD2d 477, 479) which was the proximate cause of the additional expense of litigating in Great Britain as well as in New York. Furthermore, the claim is viable despite the plaintiff’s settlement of the underlying matrimonial action because it is alleged that the settlement of that action was effectively compelled by the mistakes of the defendant, the plaintiff’s former counsel (see, Cohen v Lipsig,…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Hecht v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1983
- Siegel v. KranisAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1968
- Cohen v. LipsigAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1983
- Siskind v. LevyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1961
3Cited by12 opinions
- Gorbatov v. TsirelmanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2017
- Schweizer v. MulvehillDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2000
- Rau v. BorenkoffAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999
- McCarthy v. Pedersen & HouptAppellate Court of Illinois · 1993
- Amsellem v. Host Marriott Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.