Tran Han Ho v. Brackley, 69 A.D.3d 533 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). · Go Syfert
Search
Tran Han Ho v. Brackley, 69 A.D.3d 533 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
7 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Cattan v. Rohner (nyappdiv, 2026-05-26)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cattan v. Rohner (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2026 · confidence medium
Plaintiff first attempted to present this new legal argument to the court in a motion for leave to file a sur-reply, which the court properly denied and refused to consider (and which decision plaintiff does not challenge on this appeal) ( see CPLR 2214 [c]; Tran Han Ho v Brackley , 69 AD3d 533, 534 [1st Dept 2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 707 [2010]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bachman-Richards v. Pomeroy
N.Y. App. Div. · 2023 · confidence medium
As such, the burden shifted to plaintiff, who was required to provide her own expert affidavit to counter that of Julian, which she failed to do ( see Kivo v Louis F. Burke, P.C ., 187 AD3d at 503-504 ; Murray v Lipman , 162 AD3d 1659 , 1659 [4th Dept 2018]; Nuzum v Field , 106 AD3d at 541; Tran Han Ho v Brackley , 69 AD3d 533, 534 [1st Dept 2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 707 [2010]; Ehlinger v Ruberti, Girvin & Ferlazzo , 304 AD2d 925, 926 [3d Dept 2003]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kivo v. Louis F. Burke, P.C.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2020 · confidence medium
Absent an expert's affidavit, plaintiff's unsupported allegations that defendants' breached their duty of care by, among other things, not discovering certain proof to support his claims in the underlying action are insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Tran Han Ho v Brackley , 69 AD3d 533, 534 [1 st Dept 2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 950 [2010]; Merlin Biomed Asset Mgt., LLC v Wolf Block Schorr & Solis-Cohen LLP , 23 AD3d 243 [1 st Dept 2005]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Eurotech Constr. Corp. v. Fischetti & Pesce, LLP
N.Y. App. Div. · 2019 · confidence medium
Expert testimony would have been helpful because the issues here involve professional standards beyond the ordinary experience of non-lawyers ( see Tran Han Ho v Brackley , 69 AD3d 533, 534 [1st Dept 2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 707 [2010]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Tran Han Ho
v.
Patrick J. Brackley
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jan 28, 2010.
69 A.D.3d 533
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published

[*534] The motion court properly refused to consider the surreply affirmation of plaintiffs’ legal expert presented to the court after the motion had been fully submitted (see Foitl v G.A.F. Corp., 64 NY2d 911 [1985]). Absent an expert’s affidavit, and given claims that, as pleaded, raise issues of professional standards and causation beyond the ordinary experience of persons who are not lawyers, summary judgment was properly granted (see Ehlinger v Ruberti, Girvin & Ferlazzo, 304 AD2d 925, 926 [2003]; cf. Butler v Brown, 180 AD2d 406, 407 [1992], lv denied 80 NY2d 751 [1992], citing S & D Petroleum Co. v Tamsett, 144 AD2d 849, 850 [1988]). We have considered plaintiffs’ other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Sweeny, Moskowitz, Manzanet-Daniels and Román, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2008 NY Slip Op 32269(U).]