Fried v. Bower & Gardner

Decision Date07 December 1978
Citation46 N.Y.2d 765,413 N.Y.S.2d 650,386 N.E.2d 258
Parties, 386 N.E.2d 258 Bernard FRIED, Appellant, v. BOWER & GARDNER, Respondent, et al., Defendant.
CourtNew York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
OPINION OF THE COURT MEMORANDUM.

Since appellant's belief in the justice of his underlying cause is obviously sincere, it is understandable that he finds the zealousness with which the respondents represented their client disturbing, and even offensive. But the appellant must also appreciate that an attorney at law, owing no fiduciary obligation to his adversary's client, is free, if not obligated, so long as the steps he takes are within proper professional bounds, to carry out his responsibilities to his own client with full adversarial vigor. Examination of the record, as well as the voluminous file of prior proceedings requisitioned at the request of the appellant, discloses no motivation or conduct on respondents' part that was not so contained. Neither appellant's expressions of opinion to the contrary, though genuinely held, nor the conclusory allegations with which he structured both his complaint and his opposing papers could substitute for the showing of evidentiary facts required to withstand the motion for summary judgment (Capelin Assoc. v. Globe Mfg. Corp., 34 N.Y.2d 338, 341, 357 N.Y.S.2d 478, 480, 313 N.E.2d 776, 777). Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.

BREITEL, C. J., and JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and COOKE, JJ., concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 cases
  • Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Bills
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • October 15, 2012
    ...and Swift v. Stewart M. Muller Constr. Co., 46 N.Y.2d 276, 281–282, 413 N.Y.S.2d 309, 385 N.E.2d 1238;Fried v. Bower & Gardner, 46 N.Y.2d 765, 767, 413 N.Y.S.2d 650, 386 N.E.2d 258;Platzman v. American Totalisator Co., 45 N.Y.2d 910, 912, 411 N.Y.S.2d 230, 383 N.E.2d 876;Mallad Constr. Corp......
  • Rennie v. Barbarosa Transport, Ltd.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • June 22, 1989
    ...(Alvord v. Swift & Muller Constr. Co., 46 N.Y.2d 276, 281-282, 413 N.Y.S.2d 309, 385 N.E.2d 1238; Fried v. Bower & Gardner, 46 N.Y.2d 765, 767, 413 N.Y.S.2d 650, 386 N.E.2d 258; Platzman v. American Totalisator Co., 45 N.Y.2d 910, 912, 411 N.Y.S.2d 230, 383 N.E.2d 876; Mallad Constr. Corp. ......
  • Marquez v. Presbyterian Hosp. in City of New York
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • March 2, 1994
    ...It is well established that an adverse party may not sue the adversary's attorney for malpractice (Fried v. Bower & Gardner, 46 N.Y.2d 765, 767, 413 N.Y.S.2d 650, 386 N.E.2d 258). Thus the parents' suit as plaintiffs in their own name against the Legal Aid defendants fails under any The Hos......
  • In re Tompkins Cmty. Bank
    • United States
    • New York Surrogate Court
    • April 16, 2023
    ...Robert has failed to provide and evidence to support his nebulous claim of errors and omissions by counsel for Tompkins. (Fried v Bower & Gardner, 46 N.Y.2d 765 [1978]). motion to dismiss the objections to the legal fees sought is granted. Tompkins also seeks advice and direction regarding ......
  • 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