Bishop v. Maurer, 875 N.E.2d 883 (NY 2007). · Go Syfert
Search
Bishop v. Maurer, 875 N.E.2d 883 (NY 2007). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
32 citation events (32 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 2007 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2007 2016 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Scartozzi v. Potruch
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · confidence medium
Thus, the plaintiff is not precluded from asserting a cause of action alleging legal malpractice based on the defendants’ allegedly negligent advice (see Bishop v Maurer, 9 NY3d 910, 911 [2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fielding v. Kupferman
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
The Court of Appeals recently stated that “the conclusiveness of [an] 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” (Bishop v Maurer, 9 NY3d 910, 911 [2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Maurice W. Pomfrey & Associates., Ltd. v. Hancock & Estabrook, LLP
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
The fact that plaintiffs are bound by the terms of the employment agreement does not defeat the first cause of action as a matter of law (see Arnav Indus., Inc. Retirement Trust v Brown, Raysman, Millstein, Felder & Steiner, 96 NY2d 300, 305 [2001]). “[T]he conclusiveness of the underlying agreement does not absolutely preclude [a cause of] action for professional malpractice against an attorney for negligently giving to a client an incorrect explanation of the contents of a legal document” (Bishop v Maurer, 9 NY3d 910, 911 [2007]), or for failing to draft an agreement accurately reflectin…
discussed Cited "see" Berkovits v. Berkovits
N.Y. App. Div. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
The "binding nature of [an] agreement between [a client] and a third party is not a complete defense to the professional malpractice of [a] law firm that generated the agreement to its client's detriment" ( Arnav Indus., Inc. Retirement Trust v Brown, Raysman, Millstein, Felder & Steiner , 96 NY2d 300, 305 ; see Bishop v Maurer , 9 NY3d 910, 911 ).
discussed Cited "see" Arfa v. Zamir
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
The factual allegations in Mintz’s complaint and in its attorney’s affirmation are not plainly contradicted by the letters (CFLR 3211 [a] [1]; see Bishop v Maurer, 33 AD3d 497 [2006], affd 9 NY3d 910 [2007]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Lisa Bishop Et Al., Appellants,
v.
Rona Maurer, Defendant, and Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow, LLP, Et Al., Respondents
New York Court of Appeals.
Sep 18, 2007.
875 N.E.2d 883
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Lawrence H. Silverman, New York City, for appellants., Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, New York City (Roy L. Reardon of counsel), for respondents.
Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones Concur in Memorandum.
Cited by 22 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with[*911] 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 [2001]). Here, however, plaintiffs’ complaint is devoid of any nonconclusory allegation that incorrect advice was given.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

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