Legal Opinion
Baer v. Broder
New York Supreme Court
Decided February 26, 1981PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Joseph Jaspan, J.
This is an action for malpractice against an attorney. The defendant moves pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd [a], pars 3, 7) to dismiss the complaint upon the ground that the plaintiff does not have legal capacity to sue since she was not in privity with the defendant, and failing that to reduce the ad damnum clause from $500,000 to $250,000, the amount claimed in an underlying action.
In 1931 in a malpractice case involving an accountant, Judge Benjamin Cardozo wrote that: “The assault upon the citadel of privity is proceeding in these days apace. How far the…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- MacPherson v. . Buick Motor Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1916
- Ultramares Corp. v. ToucheNew York Court of Appeals · 1931
- Savings Bank v. WardSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
- White v. GuarenteNew York Court of Appeals · 1977
- Carrick v. Central General HospitalNew York Court of Appeals · 1980
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Rusyniak v. GensiniDistrict Court, N.D. New York · 2009
- Quintel Corp., N v. v. Citibank, N.A.District Court, S.D. New York · 1984
- Calamari v. GraceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1983
- State for Use of Smith v. Tyonek Timber, Inc.Alaska Supreme Court · 1984
- Baer v. BroderAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1982
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.