From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Postel v. Jaffe Segal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 6, 1997
237 A.D.2d 127 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

March 6, 1997.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered June 10, 1996, which denied Plaintiffs' motion to vacate the default resulting in the dismissal of this action for legal malpractice, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Before: Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Tom and Andrias, JJ.


Vacatur of Plaintiffs' default was properly denied because, having failed to set forth the names of the experts who would have testified and the substance of their testimony, Plaintiffs' claim of damages remains speculative ( compare, Drucker v Mige Assocs. II, 225 AD2d 427, 428-429, lv denied 88 NY2d 807, with Campbell v Rogers Wells, 218 AD2d 576, 580). Further, absent a showing of actual damages, there can be no cause of action for legal malpractice ( see, Zarin v Reid Priest, 184 AD2d 385, 387), or any other tort. Plaintiffs' pattern of evading discovery orders is evident from the record, and is further justification for the sanction of dismissal ( see, Berman v Szpilzinger, 180 AD2d 612).


Summaries of

Postel v. Jaffe Segal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 6, 1997
237 A.D.2d 127 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Postel v. Jaffe Segal

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT I. POSTEL et al., Appellants, v. JAFFE SEGAL et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Mar 6, 1997

Citations

237 A.D.2d 127 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
654 N.Y.S.2d 25

Citing Cases

TAL v. LEBER

Because plaintiff has failed to submit any evidence to prove that his damages are actual and ascertainable,…

Skvara v. Kamaras

As such, plaintiffs damages are completely speculative (see Oot v. Arno, supra; Igen, Inc. v. White, supra).…