Davis v. Klein, 671 N.E.2d 1268 (N.Y. 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
Davis v. Klein, 671 N.E.2d 1268 (N.Y. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
58 citation events (53 in the last 25 years) across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Ataroua v. Tamir, No. 1:22-cv-10371 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2023)
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996 2011 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
88 N.Y.2d at 1009 Establishing prima facie case for legal malpractice25 citing casesIn order to establish a prima facie case of legal malpractice, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the plaintiff would have succeeded on the merits of the underlying action but for the attorney’s negligence2 citing courts put it this way · 24 listed here
  • Ataroua v. Tamir, No. 1:22-cv-10371 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2023).
    (In order to establish a prima facie case of legal malpractice, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the plaintiff would have succeeded on the merits of the underlying action but for the attorney’s negligence.)
  • Walgreen Co. v. Kassover, 2024 NY Slip Op 33785(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. 2024).unpublished
    See Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, supra, at 442 ; Davis v Klein, 88 NY2d 1008, 1009-1010 (1996); Carmel v Lunney, 70 NY2d 169, 173 (1987).
  • Silverman v. Potruch & Daab, LLC, 142 A.D.3d 660 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2016).published
    “To establish causation, a plaintiff must show that he or she would have prevailed in the underlying action or would not have incurred any damages, but for the lawyer’s negligence” (Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d…
  • John W. Grace v. Michael R. Law, 21 N.E.3d 995 (N.Y. 2014).published
    (In order to establish a prima facie case of legal malpractice, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the plaintiff would have succeeded on the merits of the underlying action but for the attorney’s negligence)
  • Rodriguez v. Lipsig, Shapey, Manus & Moverman, P.C., 81 A.D.3d 551 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2011).published
    In an action for legal malpractice, “a plaintiff must demonstrate that [he or she] would have succeeded on the merits of the underlying action but for the attorney’s negligence” (Davis v Klein, 88 NY2d 1008, 1009-1010 [1996]; see Dweck Law…
  • Waggoner v. Caruso, 929 N.E.2d 396 (N.Y. 2010).published
    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 proc…
  • Dupree v. Voorhees, 15 N.Y.3d 705 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2009).published
    In any event, the appellant also met his prima facie burden by demonstrating that the plaintiff was unable to prove that, but for his alleged negligence, she would not have sustained any damages (see Davis v Klein, 88 NY2d 1008, 1009-1010…
  • Bixby v. Somerville, 62 A.D.3d 1137 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2009).published 2 cites
    To establish proximate cause, a client such as defendant must show that he or she “would have succeeded on the merits of the underlying action but for the attorney’s negligence” (Davis v Klein, 88 NY2d 1008, 1009-1010 [1996]; see Brodeur v…
  • Teodorescu v. Binder, 55 A.D.3d 721 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2008).published
    To establish causation, a plaintiff must show that he or she would have prevailed in the underlying action, or would not have incurred any damages but for the attorney’s negligence (see Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer,; 8…
  • Rudolf v. Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 867 N.E.2d 385 (N.Y. 2007).published
    To establish causation, a plaintiff must show that he or she would have prevailed in the underlying action or would not have incurred any damages, but for the lawyer’s negligence (see Davis v Klein, 88 NY2d 1008, 1009-1010 [1996]; Carmel v…
Show 14 more citing cases
  • AmBase Corp. v. Davis Polk & Wardwell, 866 N.E.2d 1033 (N.Y. 2007).published
    In order to sustain a claim for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must establish both that the defendant attorney failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession which resu…
  • Aquino v. Kuczinski, Vila Assocs., P.C., 39 A.D.3d 216 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2007).published
    In order to establish a prima facie case of legal malpractice, a plaintiff must demonstrate that he or she would have succeeded on the merits of the underlying action but for the attorney’s negligence (Davis v Klein, 88 NY2d 1008, 1009-101…
  • Fenster v. Smith, 39 A.D.3d 231 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2007).published
    Accepting the facts alleged in the complaint as true and affording plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference (Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]), the complaint against defendant Smith was properly dismissed since…
  • Siciliano v. Forchelli & Forchelli, 17 A.D.3d 343 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2005).published
    In order to succeed in an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must ultimately prove, inter alia, that but for the defendant’s negligence, he or she would have prevailed in the underlying action or would not have su…
  • Aversa v. Safran, 303 A.D.2d 700 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2003).published
    To establish the elements of proximate cause and damages, a plaintiff must show that but for the defendant’s negligence, he or she would have prevailed in the underlying action or would not have sustained any damages (see Davis v Klein, 88…
  • Burbige v. Siben & Ferber, 152 A.D.3d 641 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2017).published
    “To establish causation, a plaintiff must show that he or she would have prevailed in the underlying action or would not have incurred any damages, but for the lawyer’s negligence” (Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d…
  • Barnave v. Davis, 108 A.D.3d 582 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2013).published 2 cites
    “To establish causation, a plaintiff must show that he or she would have prevailed in the underlying action or would not have incurred any damages, but for the lawyer’s negligence” (Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d…
  • Leone v. Silver & Silver, LLP, 62 A.D.3d 962 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2009).published
    In order to prevail on this claim, the plaintiff must establish both that the defendants “failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession” (Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stani…
  • Kutner v. CatterSon, 56 A.D.2d 437 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2008).published
    “To establish causation, a plaintiff must show that he or she would have prevailed in the underlying action or would not have incurred any damages, but for the lawyer’s negligence” (Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d…
  • Avery v. Sirlin, 26 A.D.3d 451 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2006).published
    To prevail in an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, “a plaintiff must establish that (1) the defendant attorney failed to exercise that degree of care, skill, and diligence commonly possessed and exercised by a member of the…
  • Baker, Sanders, Barshay, Grossman, Fass, Muhlstock & Neuwirth, LLC v. Comprehensive Mental Assessment & Med. Care, P.C., 26 Misc. 3d 1109 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2010).published
    (Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438 [2007]; see also Davis v Klein, 88 NY2d 1008, 1009-1010 [1996]; Carmel v Lunney, 70 NY2d 169 [1987].) Thus, in order for the Pincusovich defendants to prevail in their countercl…
  • Edelweiss (USA) Inc. v. Vengroff Williams & Assocs., Inc., 27 A.D.3d 688 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2006).published
    On a motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff thus has the burden of establishing, prima facie, that the attorney’s negligence was the proximate cause of its loss, and that it would have prevailed in the underlying action but for the att…
  • Amodeo v. Gellert & Quartararo, P.C., 26 A.D.3d 705 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2006).published
    To establish a prima facie case of legal malpractice, a plaintiff is required to establish the existence of an attorney-client relationship at the time of the alleged malpractice, that the attorney was negligent, that the negligence was a…
  • Maillet v. Campbell, 280 A.D.2d 526 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2001).published
88 N.Y.2d at 1008 “a plaintiff must demonstrate that he or she would have succeeded on the merits of the underlying action but for the attorney's negligence”0 citing cases3 citing courts quote it · passage not found verbatim in the opinion (88%)
    Other citing cases3 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
    Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
    Robert L. Davis Et Al., Appellants,
    v.
    Naomi Klein, as Executrix of the Estate of Lawrence A. Klein, Deceased, Et Al., Respondents
    New York Court of Appeals.
    Sep 17, 1996.
    Published opinion
    671 N.E.2d 1268
    1996 N.Y. LEXIS 2723
    APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Lipsitz, Green, Fahringer, Roll, Salisbury & Cambria, Buffalo (John A. Collins of counsel), for appellants., DAmato & Lynch, New York City (Stephen F. Willig of counsel), for respondents.
    Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick Concur.
    Cited by 47 opinions  |  Published

    OPINION OF THE COURT

    Memorandum.

    The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

    Plaintiff Robert Davis retained the defendant law firm in March 1987 to represent and appear for him in all proceedings concerning a workers’ compensation claim arising out of an accident which occurred on property allegedly owned by the City of New York. In 1988, plaintiff’s case was allegedly referred by the defendant attorney to another lawyer in the same firm for discussion on commencing a third-party action against the City. Plaintiff was informed at that time that his claim against the City was barred by the Statute of Limitations.

    Plaintiff’s workers’ compensation claim was resolved and no further action with respect to the claim against the City was taken until 1991, when plaintiff and his spouse commenced this legal malpractice action. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants committed malpractice by failing to timely institute an action against the City as owner of the property where the accident occurred pursuant to Labor Law §§ 200, 240, 241 (6) and common-law negligence principles. Defendants moved for summary judgment. Supreme Court granted defendants’ motion and dismissed the complaint. The Appellate Division, with one Justice dissenting, affirmed.

    In order to establish a prima facie case of legal malpractice, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the plaintiff would have succeeded on the merits of the underlying action but for the at[*1010] torney’s negligence (see, Carmel v Lunney, 70 NY2d 169, 173; Servidone Constr. Corp. v Security Ins. Co., 64 NY2d 419, 425; Kerson Co. v Shayne, Dachs, Weiss, Kolbrenner, Levy & Levine, 59 AD2d 551, 553, affd 45 NY2d 730, 732). Plaintiffs’ unsupported allegations that the City owned the property in question failed to raise material issues of fact with respect to their underlying claims against the City, and the complaint was properly dismissed.

    Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.

    On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.