Na Kerson Co., Inc. v. Shayne, 380 N.E.2d 302 (N.Y. 1978). · Go Syfert
Search
Na Kerson Co., Inc. v. Shayne, 380 N.E.2d 302 (N.Y. 1978). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
74 citation events (14 in the last 25 years) across 12 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Palumbo v. Dell, 73 A.D.3d 723 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2010)
Treatment trajectory · 1979 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1979 2002 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
45 N.Y.2d at 732 cited at this page8 citing cases
  • Palumbo v. Dell, 73 A.D.3d 723 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2010).
    Kerson Co. v Shayne, Dachs, Weiss, Kolbrenner, Levy & Levine, 45 NY2d 730, 732 [1978]; Matera v Catanzano, 161 AD2d 687, 688 [1990]; see also Ideal Steel Supply Corp. v Beil, 55 AD3d 544 [2008]; Payette v Rockefeller Univ., 220 AD2d 69, 74…
  • Leone v. Silver & Silver, LLP, 62 A.D.3d 962 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2009).
    Kerson Co. v Shayne, Dachs, Weiss, Kolbrenner, Levy & Levine, 45 NY2d 730, 732 [1978]; Tortura v Sullivan Papain Block McGrath & Cannavo, P.C., 21 AD3d 1082, 1083 [2005]; Rau v Borenkoff, 262 AD2d 388, 389 [1999]; Lattimore v Bergman, 224…
  • Agate v. Herrick, Feinstein LLP, 57 A.D.3d 341 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2008).
    Kerson Co. v Shayne, Dachs, Weiss, Kolbrenner, Levy & Levine, 45 NY2d 730, 732 [1978]), his cause of action is deficient, and dismissal is required (Katash v Richard Kranis, PC., 229 AD2d 305, 306 [1996], lv dismissed 89 NY2d 981 [1997]).
  • Kaminsky v. Herrick, 59 A.D.3d 1 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2008).
    Kerson Co. v Shayne, Dachs, Weiss, Kolbrenner, Levy & Levine, 45 NY2d 730, 732 [1978]).
  • Kutner v. CatterSon, 56 A.D.2d 437 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2008).
    Kerson Co. v Shayne, Dachs, Weiss, Kolbrenner, Levy & Levine, 45 NY2d 730, 732 [1978], affg on Suozzi, J., concurring op, 59 AJD2d 551, 552 [1977]; Tortura v Sullivan Papain Block McGrath & Cannavo, P.C., 21 AD3d 1082, 1083 [2005]; Rau v B…
  • AmBase Corp. v. Davis Polk & Wardwell, 866 N.E.2d 1033 (N.Y. 2007).
    Kerson Co. v Shayne, Dachs, Weiss, Kolbrenner, Levy & Levine, 45 NY2d 730, 732 [1978]; see also Carmel v Lunney, 70 NY2d 169, 173 [1987]).
  • Niezbecki v. Eisner & Hubbard, P. C., 186 Misc. 2d 191 (N.Y. City Civ. Ct. 1999).
    (Kerson Co. v Shayne, Dachs, Weiss, Kolbrenner, Levy & Levine, 45 NY2d 730, 732 [1978].) To prevail on a malpractice theory, he also must demonstrate that the union’s withdrawal of his grievance substantially deviated from the procedures a…
  • Carmel v. Lunney, 511 N.E.2d 1126 (N.Y. 1987).
    The test is whether a proper "defense would have altered the result of the prior action” (Kerson Co. v Shayne, Dachs, Weiss, Kolbrenner, Levy & Levine, supra, at 732; see, Parksville Mobile Modular v Fabricant, 73 AD2d 595 , appeal dismiss…
At page 303 affirming for reasons stated in concurrence of Suozzi, J.2 citing cases1 citing court put it this way
  • Condren v. Grace, 783 F. Supp. 178 (S.D.N.Y. 1992).
    (affirming for reasons stated in concurrence of Suozzi, J.)
  • Newman v. Silver, 553 F. Supp. 485 (S.D.N.Y. 1982).
    Kerson Co. v. Shayne, Dachs, Weiss, Kolbrenner, Levy & Levine, 45 N.Y.2d 730, 732 , 408 N.Y.S.2d 475, 476 , 380 N.E.2d 302, 303 (1978); Parker, Chapin, Flattau & Klimpl v. Daelen Corp., 59 A.D.2d 375, 378-79 , 399 N.Y.S.2d 222, 224 (1st De…
At page 302 cited at this page1 citing case
  • Prande v. Bell, 660 A.2d 1055 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1995).
    Kerson Co., Inc. v. Shayne, Dachs, Weiss, Kolbrenner, Levy and Moe Levine, 45 N.Y.2d 730 , 408 N.Y.S.2d 475, 476 , 380 N.E.2d 302, 302 (1978). .
Other citing cases2 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
N. A. Kerson Company, Inc., Et Al., Appellants,
v.
Shayne, Dachs, Weiss, Kolbrenner, Levy and Moe Levine, Individually and as Partners, Et Al., Respondents
New York Court of Appeals.
Jul 11, 1978.
380 N.E.2d 302
1978 N.Y. LEXIS 2188
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Nathaniel Kerson, pro se, and Stephan A. Blum for appellants., Samuel Halpern for respondents.
Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Fuchsberg and Cooke Concur Judge Wachtler Taking No Part.
Cited by 53 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs, for reasons stated in the concurring memorandum of Mr. Justice Joseph A. Suozzi.

We would add only that plaintiffs proof, taken in its most favorable light, fails to establish a prima facie case of legal malpractice or fraud in connection with the execution of the stipulation of settlement of the prior action. Other than evidence of withdrawal of the second affirmative defense, the record is barren of any evidence that said defense would have altered the result of the prior action.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur; Judge Wachtler taking no part.

Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.