Waggoner v. Caruso, 929 N.E.2d 396 (NY 2010). · Go Syfert
Search
Waggoner v. Caruso, 929 N.E.2d 396 (NY 2010). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
31 citation events (31 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Rehberger v. Garguilo & Orzechowski, LLP (nyappdiv, 2014-06-11)
Treatment trajectory · 2010 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2010 2018 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Rehberger v. Garguilo & Orzechowski, LLP
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
“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” (Rudolfo Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d at 442 ; see Waggoner v Caruso, 14 NY3d 874 [2010]; Barnave v Davis, 108 AD3d 582 [2013]). “ ‘To succeed on a motion for summary judgment, the defendant in a legal malpractice action must present evidence in admissible form establishing that the plaintiff is unable to prove at least one of these essential elements’ ” (Affordable Community, Inc. v…
discussed Cited "see" Rehberger v. Garguilo & Orzechowski, LLP
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
“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” (Rudolfo Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d at 442 ; see Waggoner v Caruso, 14 NY3d 874 [2010]; Barnave v Davis, 108 AD3d 582 [2013]). “ ‘To succeed on a motion for summary judgment, the defendant in a legal malpractice action must present evidence in admissible form establishing that the plaintiff is unable to prove at least one of these essential elements’ ” (Affordable Community, Inc. v…
cited Cited "see" Protostorm, LLC v. Antonelli, Terry, Stout & Kraus, LLP
E.D.N.Y · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See Waggoner v. Caruso, 14 N.Y.3d 874 , 875, 903 N.Y.S.2d 333 , 929 N.E.2d 396 (2010); Putnam Cnty.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
J. Virgil Waggoner Et Al., Appellants,
v.
Kenneth A. Caruso Et Al., Respondents
145 SSM 17.
New York Court of Appeals.
May 11, 2010.
929 N.E.2d 396
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Lally Mahon & Rooney LLP, New York City (James J. Mahon of counsel), for appellants., Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler, LLP, New York City (Frederick B. Warder III and Rosanne E. Felicello of counsel), for Kenneth A. Caruso, respondent., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, New York City (E. Leo Milonas and David G. Keyko of counsel), respondent pro se.
Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones Concur in Memorandum.
Cited by 18 opinions  |  Published

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.VW. 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 NY2d 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.

Chief Judge Lippman 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.