From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Chalpin v. Caro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 5, 1999
265 A.D.2d 155 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

October 5, 1999

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered September 25, 1998, which granted defendants' motion dismissing complaint on the ground of res judicata, unanimously affirmed, with costs.


The Federal District Court's determination fixing the value of defendants' legal services in the underlying action in which defendants were retained by plaintiffs necessarily decided that there was no legal malpractice, and the interposition of such a claim is subsequently barred by the doctrine of res judicata (see Summit Solomon Feldsman v. Matalon, 216 A.D.2d 91, 92 lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 711). Given that the District Court had ancillary jurisdiction to decide the value of defendants' services in the underlying action (see, Cluett, Peabody Co. v. CPC Acquisition Co., 863 F.2d 251, 256), it necessarily had ancillary jurisdiction to decide whether defendants committed any malpractice in that action.

Concur — SULLIVAN, J.P., WILLIAMS, WALLACH, LERNER, FRIEDMAN, JJ.


Summaries of

Chalpin v. Caro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 5, 1999
265 A.D.2d 155 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Chalpin v. Caro

Case Details

Full title:EDWARD CHALPIN, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CHASE CARO, ESQ., et…

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

Date published: Oct 5, 1999

Citations

265 A.D.2d 155 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
696 N.Y.S.2d 34

Citing Cases

Ramos v. Onebeacon Insurance Co.

Plaintiff Ramos' cross motion for summary judgment for a judgment in his favor declaring that defendant…

Emar Bldg. Corp. v. Codispoti & Mancinelli, LLP

The doctrine of collateral estoppel bars relitigation where "there is identity of issue which has necessarily…