From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Marinelli Associates v. Morrison

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 3, 2003
303 A.D.2d 386 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2002-05152

Argued January 30, 2003.

March 3, 2003.

In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the defendant Edward A. Morrison appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), dated April 25, 2002, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Edward A. Morrison, Albany, N.Y., appellant pro se.

Andrew Lavoott Bluestone, New York, N.Y., for respondent.

Before: NANCY E. SMITH, J.P., GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, SANDRA L. TOWNES, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

"The proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case" (Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853; Drago v. King, 283 A.D.2d 603). Here, contrary to the appellant's contention, he failed to establish his prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The appellant's submissions on his motion for summary judgment failed to disprove that but for his failure to timely interpose causes of action alleging fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and conversion, the plaintiff would have succeeded in its initial claims against the other members of the joint venture in question. Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment was properly denied.

SMITH, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, TOWNES and MASTRO, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Marinelli Associates v. Morrison

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 3, 2003
303 A.D.2d 386 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Marinelli Associates v. Morrison

Case Details

Full title:MARINELLI ASSOCIATES, respondent, v. EDWARD A. MORRISON, appellant, ET…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 3, 2003

Citations

303 A.D.2d 386 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
755 N.Y.S.2d 668

Citing Cases

Duff v. 646 Tenth Ave., LLC

However, the significance of the holding is somewhat abated because the independent contractor was found not…

Weising v. Fairfield Props

The Supreme Court improperly denied that branch of the cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing…