Von Ludwig v. Schiano

• Decision Date: 19 April 1965
• Citation: 258 N.Y.S.2d 661,23 A.D.2d 789
• Parties: Davidlee VON LUDWIG, Respondent, v. Vincent V. SCHIANO, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 661

258 N.Y.S.2d 661

23 A.D.2d 789

Davidlee VON LUDWIG, Respondent, v.Vincent V. SCHIANO, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

April 19, 1965.

Fried & Mailman, New York City, for appellant-respondent; William P. Volin, New York City, of counsel.

Stanley D. Bernstein, New York City, for respondent-appellant.

Before BELDOCK, P. J., and UGHETTA, CHRIST, BRENNAN and HOPKINS, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In an action against an attorney to recover damages for breach of a contract of retainer, and for other relief, defendant appeals: (1) from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered April 7, 1964, as denied his motion to dismiss the first, third and fourth causes of action of the amended complaint; and (2) from so much of an order of said court, entered May 11, 1964 upon reargument, as adhered to the original decision.

Appeal from order entered April 7, 1964 dismissed, without costs; that order was superseded by the later order of May 11, 1964, granting reargument.

Order, entered May 11, 1964, modified by dismissing the first cause of action for insufficiency, with leave to plaintiff to serve a second amended complaint.As so modified, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs.Plaintiff may serve the second amended complaint within thirty days after entry of the order hereon.

The first cause of action for breach of the contract of retainer is insufficient because it fails to allege that the information which defendant(the attorney) disclosed to a third person was information which defendant gained in the attorney-client relationship or which he had acquired confidentially.

The...