SERHOFER v. GROMAN & WOLF


203 A.D.2d 354 (1994)

610 N.Y.S.2d 294

Andrew Serhofer, Respondent, v. Groman & Wolf, P. C., et al., Appellants

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department.

April 11, 1994


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants' motion, inter alia, to strike the action from the trial calendar was based on the plaintiff's failure to respond to their notice for discovery and inspection regarding expert witnesses. However, the plaintiff's counsel expressly indicated that he "does not intend to retain an expert for his direct case". Moreover, the plaintiff's action to recover damages for legal malpractice is based on the allegation...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases