Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)

LISA BISHOP et al., Appellants, v. RONA MAURER, Defendant, and GOODKIND LABATON RUDOFF SUCHAROW, LLP, et al., Respondents.

OPINION OF THE COURT

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question not answered on the ground that it is unnecessary. It is true that plaintiffs here, as is normally the case, are bound by the estate planning documents decedent signed. Nevertheless, the conclusiveness of the underlying agreement does not absolutely preclude an action for professional malpractice against an attorney for negligently giving to a client an incorrect explanation of the contents of a legal document ( see Arnav Indus., Inc. Retirement Trust v. Brown, Raysman, Millstein, Felder Steiner, 96 NY2d 300, 305). Here, however, plaintiffs' complaint is devoid of any nonconclusory allegation that incorrect advice was given.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals ( 22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, etc.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

BISHOP v. MAURER
(Sep 18, 2007)