Even assuming the truth of the material allegations of the complaint, and according plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable inferences, the complaint fails to plead a cognizable claim for malpractice since it does not permit the inference that, but for defendants' failure to name certain parties as defendants in plaintiff's underlying federal personal injury action, plaintiff would not have sustained actual, ascertainable damages (see Pellegrino v File,
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
PYNE v. BLOCK & ASSOCIATES
305 A.D.2d 213 (2003)
760 N.Y.S.2d 30
JAMES PYNE, Appellant, v. BLOCK & ASSOCIATES et al., Respondents.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
Decided May 13, 2003.
Decided May 13, 2003.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.
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.
