From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Abramovich v. Harris

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
May 31, 1996
227 A.D.2d 1000 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

May 31, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County, Dunkin, J.

Present — Pine, J.P., Fallon, Callahan, Balio and Davis, JJ.


Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in denying plaintiffs' motion for a default judgment in this legal malpractice action. Defendants promptly delivered the summons and complaint to their insurer and, when served with the motion papers seeking a default judgment, also promptly delivered those papers to their insurer. There is no proof that defendants deliberately defaulted, and the court did not abuse its discretion in accepting the negligence or inadvertence of the insurer as a reasonable excuse for the default ( see, Damselle, Ltd. v. 500-512 Seventh Ave. Assocs., 184 A.D.2d 367; Price v. Polisner, 172 A.D.2d 422; Pickney v. Wood, 165 A.D.2d 949). To establish a prima facie case of legal malpractice, plaintiffs must establish that they would have been successful in the underlying action ( see, Albach v. Manning Mule, 201 A.D.2d 601, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 803; Gonzales v. O'Hagen Reilly, 189 A.D.2d 801, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 810). Defendants submitted facts demonstrating lack of merit to the underlying action, and hence, the existence of a meritorious defense to the legal malpractice action.

We reject plaintiffs' contention that the doctrine of judicial estoppel bars defendants from challenging the merits of the underlying action. That doctrine "precludes a party who assumed a certain position in a prior legal proceeding and who secured a judgment in his or her favor from assuming a contrary position in another action simply because his or her interests have changed" ( Prudential Home Mtge. Co. v. Neildan Constr. Corp., 209 A.D.2d 394, 395). Defendants were not parties to the prior action nor was judgment obtained in plaintiffs' favor in that action.


Summaries of

Abramovich v. Harris

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
May 31, 1996
227 A.D.2d 1000 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Abramovich v. Harris

Case Details

Full title:MARIANA ABRAMOVICH et al., Appellants, v. STEPHEN HARRIS et al.…

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

Date published: May 31, 1996

Citations

227 A.D.2d 1000 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
643 N.Y.S.2d 811

Citing Cases

Whitaker Securities, LLC v. Rosenfeld (In re Rosenfeld)

Judicial estoppel "precludes a party who assumed a certain position in a prior legal proceeding and who…

Mukuralinda v. Kingombe

Indeed, the mother swore in one petition that she and petitioner were “married in Africa on 6/28/98,” which…