From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mendoza v. Schlossman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 15, 1982
87 A.D.2d 606 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982)

Summary

setting forth the standard

Summary of this case from Santos v. Garzon

Opinion

March 15, 1982


In a legal malpractice action, plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lawrence, J.), entered October 23, 1980, which dismissed his complaint, and (2) a judgment entered thereon on December 2, 1980. Appeal from the order dismissed (see Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248). Judgment reversed, order vacated, and matter remitted to Trial Term for further proceedings consistent herewith. Plaintiff is awarded one bill of costs. Where a default is entered against a defendant in a legal malpractice action, plaintiff is not required to prove the probable success of the underlying action upon an assessment of damages. An action for legal malpractice requires proof of three essential elements: (1) the negligence of the attorney; (2) that the negligence was the proximate cause of the loss sustained; and (3) proof of actual damages (see Creative Inception v. Andrews, 50 A.D.2d 553). A default judgment on the issue of liability in a legal malpractice action disposes of the issue of the lawyer's negligence and the validity of the underlying claim. Therefore upon assessment of damages, plaintiff is not required to establish the validity of the underlying action but must establish the injuries suffered and their value. Lazer, J.P., Mangano, O'Connor and Brown, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Mendoza v. Schlossman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 15, 1982
87 A.D.2d 606 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982)

setting forth the standard

Summary of this case from Santos v. Garzon
Case details for

Mendoza v. Schlossman

Case Details

Full title:JOSE MENDOZA, Appellant, v. GEORGE M. SCHLOSSMAN, Respondent

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

Date published: Mar 15, 1982

Citations

87 A.D.2d 606 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982)

Citing Cases

Caruso, Caruso & Brands, P.C. v. Hirsch, 2010 NY Slip Op 50768(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 3/22/2010)

Specifically, Ms. Hirsch contends that the law firm should have filed a notice of pendency, also known as a…

Zeitlin v. Greenberg, Margolis, Ziegler

The Supreme Court properly dismissed so much of the first and second causes of action as sought to recover…