Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Herbert TURK, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Joshua ANGEL, et al., Defendants-Respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus Salaam, J.), entered on or about February 22, 2001, which, inter alia, granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(7), unanimously affirmed, without costs.
In this action seeking damages for legal malpractice based on defendants' alleged failure to bring plaintiffs' asset purchase proposal to the attention of the Bankruptcy Court during a hearing to determine the buyer for the estate of the debtor, the motion court properly determined that plaintiffs had no cause of action for malpractice, since plaintiffs would be unable to demonstrate that, but for defendants' conduct, they would have been the successful bidder. The successful bidder's proposal was ready at the hearing and was submitted without conditions, while plaintiffs required additional time to conduct a due diligence investigation and plaintiff American Industrial Acquisition Corp. was clearly unwilling to go forward without certain conditions to prevent forfeiture of its deposit. In addition, plaintiffs' claim of damages was impermissibly speculative (see, Phillips Smith Specialty Retail Group II, L.P. v. Parker Chapin Flattau & Klimpl, LLP., 265 A.D.2d 208, 209-210, 696 N.Y.S.2d 150, lv. denied 94 N.Y.2d 759, 705 N.Y.S.2d 6, 726 N.E.2d 483). Plaintiff Turk's claims for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty were properly dismissed as duplicative of the insufficient malpractice claim (Nevelson v. Carro, Spanbock, Kaster & Cuiffo, 290 A.D.2d 399, 736 N.Y.S.2d 668), and, under the circumstances, his tortious interference claims were also properly dismissed for the same reason. The other plaintiffs' claims for tortious interference were properly dismissed since it was plain that those plaintiffs would not be able to demonstrate that defendants' conduct was a proximate cause of their alleged loss (see, J.C. Klein, Inc. v. Forzley, 289 A.D.2d 79, 734 N.Y.S.2d 157).
We have considered plaintiffs' other contentions and find them unavailing.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: April 04, 2002
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)