Summary
affirming for the reasons in the concurring opinion
Summary of this case from Allegrino v. Ruskin Moscou Faltischek, P.C.Opinion
Argued June 7, 1978
Decided July 11, 1978
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, FRANK S. SAMANSKY, J.
Nathaniel Kerson, pro se, and Stephan A. Blum for appellants.
Samuel Halpern for respondents.
MEMORANDUM.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs, for reasons stated in the concurring memorandum of Mr. Justice JOSEPH A. SUOZZI.
We would add only that plaintiff's proof, taken in its most favorable light, fails to establish a prima facie case of legal malpractice or fraud in connection with the execution of the stipulation of settlement of the prior action. Other than evidence of withdrawal of the second affirmative defense, the record is barren of any evidence that said defense would have altered the result of the prior action.
Chief Judge BREITEL and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, FUCHSBERG and COOKE concur; Judge WACHTLER taking no part.
Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.