Singer v. Whitman & Ransom
| Decision Date | 17 August 1981 |
| Citation | 442 N.Y.S.2d 26,83 A.D.2d 862 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | Sidney SINGER, Respondent, v. WHITMAN & RANSOM, Appellant. |
Whitman & Ransom, New York City (John M. Hadlock and Jeffrey A. Oppenheim, New York City, of counsel), for appellant pro se.
Lichtenberg & Goss, P. C., New York City (Alan J. Firestone, Murray Lichtenberg and Donald L. Marcovitz, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.
Before HOPKINS, J. P., and MANGANO, MARGETT, and THOMPSON, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action by a stockholder, inter alia, to compel the issuance of an attorney's letter, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated December 22, 1980, which denied its motion for summary judgment.
Order modified, on the law, by adding thereto, after the provision denying the motion for summary judgment, the following: "except the motion is granted to the extent of dismissing the demand for relief pursuant to section 487 of the Judiciary Law." As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Plaintiff, an alleged owner of unregistered and restricted stock of a corporation, brought this action, inter alia, seeking damages on the ground that the defendant, Whitman & Ransom, counsel to the corporation which issued the stock, aided and abetted the corporation, its officers and the transfer agent, in an effort to impede plaintiff's attempt to sell his stock by refusing to provide an opinion letter releasing the restricted stock for sale, although plaintiff allegedly complied with rule 144 of the Securities and Exchange Commission (17 CFR 230.144). Generally, an action against an attorney by a nonclient third party will not lie (see Gifford v. Harley, 62 A.D.2d 5, 404 N.Y.S.2d 405; Victor v. Goldman, 74 Misc.2d 685, 344 N.Y.S.2d 672; Dallas v. Fassnacht, Sup., 42 N.Y.S.2d 415). However, an attorney may be held liable for injuries sustained by a third party as a consequence of the attorney's wrongful or improper exercise of authority, or where the attorney has committed fraud or collusion or a malicious or tortious act (see Newburger, Loeb & Co. v. Gross, 2 Civ., 563 F.2d 1057, cert. den. 434 U.S. 1035, 98 S.Ct. 769, 54 L.Ed.2d 782; Cronin v. Scott, 78 A.D.2d 745, 432 N.Y.S.2d 656; Sefi Fabricators v. Tillim, 79 Misc.2d 213, 360 N.Y.S.2d 146; Kasen v. Morrell, 18 Misc.2d 158, 183 N.Y.S.2d 928).
Except as hereinafter noted, summary judgment is not appropriate in this case and a trial should be had, as questions of fact...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vereins-Und Westbank, AG v. Carter
...Levine v. Graphic Scanning (1st Dept.1982) 87 A.D.2d 755, 448 N.Y.S.2d 692 (discussed infra at n. 16); Singer v. Whitman & Ransom (2d Dept. 1981) 83 A.D.2d 862, 442 N.Y.S.2d 26 (action by stockholder against corporation's counsel for refusal to issue opinion letter); Gifford v. Harley (3d D......
-
Kallista, S.A. v. White & Williams LLP
...relates to either a prior judicial proceeding or one which may be commenced in the future (see, e.g., Singer v. Whitman & Ransom, 83 A.D.2d 862, 442 N.Y.S.2d 26 [2d Dept.1981] ). This statutory construction dates back to the 1884 decision of the Court of Appeals in Looff v. Lawton, 97 N.Y. ......
-
Quintel Corp., NV v. CITIBANK, NA
...collusion or a malicious or tortious act. E.g., Kahn v. Crames, 92 A.D.2d 634, 459 N.Y.S.2d 941, 943 (1983); Singer v. Whitman & Ransom, 83 A.D.2d 862, 442 N.Y.S.2d 26, 27 (1981); Cronin v. Scott, 78 A.D.2d 745, 432 N.Y.S.2d 656, 658 (1980); Gifford v. Harley, 62 A.D.2d 5, 404 N.Y.S.2d 405,......
-
Cinao v. Reers
...if the deception relates to a prior judicial proceeding or one which may be commenced in the future.” ( Singer v. Whitman & Ransom, 83 A.D.2d 862, 863, 442 N.Y.S.2d 26 [2d Dept. 1981]; see also Costalas v. Amalfitano, 305 A.D.2d 202, 204, 760 N.Y.S.2d 422 [1st Dept. 2003]; Hansen v. Caffry,......
-
Does N.Y. Judiciary Law §487 Apply To Arbitrations?
...must occur during the course of a pending judicial proceeding") (emphasis added) (quotations omitted); Singer v. Whitman & Ransom, 83 A.D.2d 862, 862-63 (2d Dept. 1981) (Section 487 requires deceit or collusion at a "judicial Application to Arbitration The history of Section 487 as well......