Hinsdale v. Weiermiller
| Decision Date | 05 March 2015 |
| Docket Number | 519243 |
| Citation | 126 A.D.3d 1103,2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 01854,5 N.Y.S.3d 561 |
| Parties | Roger A. HINSDALE, Appellant, v. Mark A. WEIERMILLER et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
126 A.D.3d 1103
5 N.Y.S.3d 561
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 01854
Roger A. HINSDALE, Appellant
v.
Mark A. WEIERMILLER et al., Respondents.
519243
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
March 5, 2015.
Edward E. Kopko, P.C., Ithaca (Edward E. Kopko of counsel), for appellant.
Williamson, Clune & Stevens, Ithaca (John H. Hanrahan III of counsel), for respondents.
Before: LAHTINEN, J.P., GARRY, ROSE and DEVINE, JJ.
Opinion
LAHTINEN, J.P.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Mulvey, J.), entered July 3, 2013 in Chemung County, which denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.
Defendant Mark A. Weiermiller (hereinafter defendant) represented plaintiff in a real estate transaction involving property where the deed had apparently been lost and never recorded by plaintiff's father when he originally acquired the property.
Because of the title defect, the terms of the April 2007 purchase and sale agreement included a provision that the price of $325,000 would be reduced by $100,000 to $225,000 if plaintiff could not obtain a judgment quieting title within one year, i.e., by April 10, 2008, with time being of the essence. According to defendant, he encountered several significant and unanticipated difficulties in securing the judgment, which was not obtained until May 6, 2008. The buyer nonetheless agreed to pay part of the $100,000 reduction amount authorized by the agreement, resulting in plaintiff allegedly receiving $74,963 less than if a judgment had been obtained within one year. Plaintiff commenced this legal malpractice action against defendant and his law firm for the $74,963 loss he had sustained. Supreme Court denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff appeals.
We affirm. “In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the attorney ‘failed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mid-Hudson Valley Fed. Credit Union v. Quartararo & Lois, PLLC
...v. Davis Polk & Wardwell, 8 N.Y.3d 428, 434, 834 N.Y.S.2d 705, 866 N.E.2d 1033 [2007] [citations omitted]; see Hinsdale v. Weiermiller, 126 A.D.3d 1103, 1104, 5 N.Y.S.3d 561 [2015] ). The amended complaint alleged that, but for defendants' failure to provide timely and competent legal servi......
-
Sutch v. Sutch-Lenz
...exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by members of the legal community (see Hinsdale v. Weiermiller, 126 A.D.3d 1103, 1104, 5 N.Y.S.3d 561 [2015] ). Simply put, even assuming that defendants indeed played a role in the selection and purchase of the subject......
- Lawrence v. N. Country Animal Control Ctr., Inc.
-
Sutch v. Sutch-Lenz
...attorney's breach of this duty proximately caused [the] plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages” (Hinsdale v. Weiermiller, 126 A.D.3d 1103, 1104, 5 N.Y.S.3d 561 [2015] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted] ). Here, in support of his motion for summary judgment, defe......