From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cascone Cole v. Frank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 8, 1996
224 A.D.2d 247 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

February 8, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Lobis, J.).


The IAS Court properly denied the individual defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action (CPLR 3211 [a] [7]) and on the basis of a defense founded upon documentary evidence (CPLR 3211 [a] [l]). The complaint clearly alleges a viable claim that the individual defendants retained the plaintiff law firm to provide legal services for them as well as the corporate defendant, Robin Enterprises, Inc. While the individual defendants' assertion that only the corporate defendant retained the plaintiff law firm presents a triable issue of fact, it in no way impugns the sufficiency of the complaint's allegations. Rather than dispose of the retention issue, the documentary evidence relied upon to refute the claim graphically demonstrates, in our view, the need for a trial to resolve the issue.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Wallach, Ross and Williams, JJ.


Summaries of

Cascone Cole v. Frank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 8, 1996
224 A.D.2d 247 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Cascone Cole v. Frank

Case Details

Full title:CASCONE COLE, Respondent, v. BERNARD M. FRANK et al., Appellants, et al.…

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

Date published: Feb 8, 1996

Citations

224 A.D.2d 247 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
637 N.Y.S.2d 411

Citing Cases

Castellano v. Allied N. Am. Ins. Brokerage Corp.

To the contrary, whether or not Teitel was acting in the best interest of his principal, as well as the…