O'CONNELL v. Kerson

Decision Date04 February 2002
Citation736 N.Y.S.2d 895,291 A.D.2d 386
PartiesDANIEL J. O'CONNELL, Appellant,<BR>v.<BR>PAUL E. KERSON et al., Respondents.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Altman, J.P., Feuerstein, H. Miller and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order as granted that branch of the motion which was to impose a sanction on the appellant's attorney is dismissed, as the appellant is not aggrieved by that portion of the order (see, CPLR 5511; Scopelliti v Town of New Castle, 92 NY2d 944); and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order as granted that branch of the motion which was to impose a sanction on the appellant is dismissed, as no appeal lies from a portion of an order entered upon the default of the appealing party (see, CPLR 5511); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is modified by deleting the provision thereof directing the appellant to pay a sanction in the sum of $10,000 to the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection and substituting therefor a provision directing him to deposit the sum of $10,000 with the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for transmittal to the Commissioner of Taxation and Finance; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondents are awarded one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court correctly granted that branch of the respondents' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in this action to recover damages for attorney misconduct pursuant to Judiciary Law § 487 (1). The record is devoid of any evidence of either intent by the respondents to deceive, or a chronic, extreme pattern of legal delinquency that proximately caused the appellant's alleged damages (see, Ulrich v Hausfeld, 269 AD2d 526; Estate of Steinberg v Harmon, 259 AD2d 318; O'Connor v Dime Sav. Bank of N.Y., 265 AD2d 313).

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • O'Callaghan v. Sifre
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • March 11, 2008
    ...v. lacier & Schrage, P.C., 262 A.D.2d 226, 692 N.Y.S.2d 361, 363 (1st Dep't 1999) (citing cases); see also O'Connell v. Kerson, 291 A.D.2d 386, 736 N.Y.S.2d 895 (2d Dep't 2002) (citing cases). By confining the reach of the statute to intentional egregious misconduct, this rigorous standard ......
  • Aurora Loan Servs. v. Posner, Posner & Associates
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • October 9, 2007
    ...of legal delinquency" is an alternative means recovering under § 487. This Court disagrees. Aurora cites O'Connell v. Kerson, 291 A.D.2d 386, 736 N.Y.S.2d 895 (2d Dep't 2002). In O'Connell, the court stated that summary judgment in favor of defendant was appropriate because plaintiff had no......
  • Bounkhoun v. Barnes
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of New York
    • June 28, 2022
    ... ... delinquency that proximately caused the appellant's ... alleged damages.” O'Connell v. Kerson , 291 ... A.D.2d 386, 387 (2d Dep't 2002). Some New York courts ... have required a finding of a “persistent pattern of ... ...
  • Lawrence Ripak Co. v. Gdanski
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • October 19, 2016
    ...; Pui Sang Lai v. Shuk Yim Lau, 50 A.D.3d 758, 855 N.Y.S.2d 615 ; Knecht v. Tusa, 15 A.D.3d 626, 789 N.Y.S.2d 904 ; O'Connell v. Kerson, 291 A.D.2d 386, 736 N.Y.S.2d 895 ). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 32......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT