WAGGONER v. CARUSO, 14 N.Y.3d 874 (2010)
Court: Court of Appeals of New York
Number: innyco20100511279
Visitors: 30
Filed: May 11, 2010
Latest Update: May 11, 2010
Summary: OPINION OF THE COURT MEMORANDUM. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question not answered upon the ground that it is unnecessary. The Appellate Division properly held that plaintiffs J. Virgil Waggoner and J.V.W. Investment Ltd. of Dominica did not state a claim for legal malpractice insofar as they failed to allege that, but for defendants' alleged malpractice, they would have successfully recovered the $10 million investment in an underlyin
Summary: OPINION OF THE COURT MEMORANDUM. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question not answered upon the ground that it is unnecessary. The Appellate Division properly held that plaintiffs J. Virgil Waggoner and J.V.W. Investment Ltd. of Dominica did not state a claim for legal malpractice insofar as they failed to allege that, but for defendants' alleged malpractice, they would have successfully recovered the $10 million investment in an underlying..
More
OPINION OF THE COURT
MEMORANDUM.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question not answered upon the ground that it is unnecessary.
The Appellate Division properly held that plaintiffs J. Virgil Waggoner and J.V.W. Investment Ltd. of Dominica did not state a claim for legal malpractice insofar as they failed to allege that, but for defendants' alleged malpractice, they would have successfully recovered the $10 million investment in an underlying proceeding (see Davis v Klein, 88 N.Y.2d 1008, 1009-1010 [1996]). The court also properly dismissed plaintiffs' claim in this case for breach of fiduciary duty as duplicative of the claim for legal malpractice.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, etc.
Source: Leagle
