Conti v. Polizzotto, 243 A.D.2d 672 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997). · Go Syfert
Search
Conti v. Polizzotto, 243 A.D.2d 672 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases · …to allege specific facts upon which the existence of an attorney-client relationship or privity between these parties could be inferred at p. 673 ✓
32 citation events (31 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: DeMartino v. Golden (nyappdiv, 2017-05-31)
Treatment trajectory · 1998 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1998 2012 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) DeMartino v. Golden
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Accordingly, the court properly directed dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) of the causes of action alleging legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty insofar as asserted by DeMartino (see Fredriksen v Fredriksen, 30 AD3d at 371 ; Conti v Polizzotto, 243 AD2d 672, 673 [1997]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sutch v. Sutch-Lenz
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Such allegations are insufficient to establish that plaintiff had an attorney-client relationship with defendants or to otherwise place him “within the ambit of the exception to the privity requirement” (Fredriksen v Fredriksen, 30 AD3d 370, 372 [2006]; see Estate of Schneider v Finmann, 15 NY3d at 309-310 ; Conti v Polizzotto, 243 AD2d 672, 672-673 [1997]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sutch v. Sutch-Lenz
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Such allegations are insufficient to establish that plaintiff had an attorney-client relationship with defendants or to otherwise place him “within the ambit of the exception to the privity requirement” (Fredriksen v Fredriksen, 30 AD3d 370, 372 [2006]; see Estate of Schneider v Finmann, 15 NY3d at 309-310 ; Conti v Polizzotto, 243 AD2d 672, 672-673 [1997]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kosterich v. Frank Ciotta & Associates
N.Y. Sup. Ct. · 2014 · confidence medium
(See Conti v Polizzotto, 243 AD2d 672, 673 [2d Dept 1997].) Defendants have made a prima facie case that no relationship existed between plaintiff and themselves that gave rise to privity or near privity.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Betz v. Blatt
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Co., 111 AD3d 678 , 680 [2013]; Barnave v Davis, 108 AD3d 582 [2013]). “ ‘[A]bsent fraud, collusion, malicious acts or other special circumstances, an attorney is not liable to third parties, not in privity, for harm caused by professional negligence’ ” (Conti v Polizzotto, 243 AD2d 672, 672 [1997], quoting Estate of Spivey v Pulley, 138 AD2d 563, 564 [1988]; see Keness v Feldman, Kramer & Monaco, P.C., 105 AD3d 812, 813 [2013]; Jacobs v Kay, 50 AD3d 526, 526-527 [2008]; Chinello v Nixon, Hargrave, Devans & Doyle, LLP, 15 AD3d 894, 895 [2005]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Betz v. Blatt
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Co., 111 AD3d 678 , 680 [2013]; Barnave v Davis, 108 AD3d 582 [2013]). “ ‘[A]bsent fraud, collusion, malicious acts or other special circumstances, an attorney is not liable to third parties, not in privity, for harm caused by professional negligence’ ” (Conti v Polizzotto, 243 AD2d 672, 672 [1997], quoting Estate of Spivey v Pulley, 138 AD2d 563, 564 [1988]; see Keness v Feldman, Kramer & Monaco, P.C., 105 AD3d 812, 813 [2013]; Jacobs v Kay, 50 AD3d 526, 526-527 [2008]; Chinello v Nixon, Hargrave, Devans & Doyle, LLP, 15 AD3d 894, 895 [2005]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Parekh v. Cain
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Here, although the complaint made the bare allegation of the existence of an attorney-client rela tionship, the plaintiff has failed “to allege specific facts upon which the existence of an attorney-client relationship or privity between [these] parties could be inferred” (Conti v Polizzotto, 243 AD2d 672, 673 [1997]; see Fredriksen v Fredriksen, 30 AD3d 370, 371 [2006]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Parekh v. Cain
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Here, although the complaint made the bare allegation of the existence of an attorney-client rela tionship, the plaintiff has failed “to allege specific facts upon which the existence of an attorney-client relationship or privity between [these] parties could be inferred” (Conti v Polizzotto, 243 AD2d 672, 673 [1997]; see Fredriksen v Fredriksen, 30 AD3d 370, 371 [2006]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Velazquez v. Decaudin
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
In support of his motion to dismiss, Streisfeld argues that he had no attorney-client relationship with the plaintiff and, therefore, cannot be the subject of her malpractice claim as asserted in the plaintiffs sixth cause of action. “[Ajbsent fraud, collusion, malicious acts or other special circumstances, an attorney is not liable to third parties, not in privity, for harm caused by professional negligence” (Conti v Polizzotto, 243 AD2d 672, 672 [1997], quoting Estate of Spivey v Pulley, 138 AD2d 563, 564 [1988]; see AG Capital Funding Partners, L.P. v State St.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fredriksen v. Fredriksen
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · confidence medium
Bank & Trust Co., 5 NY3d 582, 595 [2005]; Goldfarb v Schwartz, 26 AD3d 462 [2006]; Rovello v Klein, 304 AD2d 638 [2003]; Conti v Polizzotto, 243 AD2d 672, 672-673 [1997]; Estate of Spivey v Pulley, 138 AD2d 563 [1988]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Calvert v. Scharf
W. Va. · 2005 · confidence medium
But see Peterson v. Anderson, 719 So.2d 216, 218 (Ala.Civ.App.1997) ("The law in Alabama is that '[a] person authorized to practice law owes no duty except that arising from contract or from a gratuitous undertaking.’ ” (citation omitted)); Lilyhorn v. Dier, 214 Neb. 728, 730 , 335 N.W.2d 554, 555 (1983) (finding beneficiary lacked standing to bring malpractice action against lawyer who drafted will because, “as a general rule the duty to exercise reasonable care and skill which a lawyer owes his client ordinarily does not extend to third parties."); Conti v. Polizzotto, 243 A.D.2d 672, …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Harrison v. Constantino
N.Y. App. Div. · 2003 · confidence medium
Viewing the facts alleged in the complaint as true and according plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference (see generally Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]), we conclude that plaintiffs have alleged that they had an attorney-client relationship with defendants (cf. Conti v Polizzotto, 243 AD2d 672, 673 [1997]).
discussed Cited "see" In Re Estate of Drwenski (2×)
Wyo. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See, for example, Conti v. Polizzotto, 243 A.D.2d 672 , 663 N.Y.S.2d 293 (N.Y.App.Div.1997); Barcelo v. Elliott, 923 S.W.2d 575 (Tex.1996); Simon v. Zipperstein, 32 Ohio St.3d 74 , 512 N.E.2d 636 (1987); and St.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Griffin v. Anslow
N.Y. App. Div. · 2005 · signal: see also · confidence low
Corp., 213 AD2d 846, 847 [1995]; see also Conti v Polizzotto, 243 AD2d 672 [1997]; Doo v Berger, 227 AD2d 435, 436 [1996]; cf. Koncelik v Abady, 179 AD2d 942, 944 [1992]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Giovanni Conti
v.
Alfred Polizzotto
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Oct 27, 1997.
243 A.D.2d 672
1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10721
Cited by 23 opinions  |  Published

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, ICings County (Barasch, J.), dated September 10, 1996, which granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“The well-established rule in New York with respect to attorney malpractice is that absent fraud, collusion, malicious acts or other special circumstances, an attorney is not liable to third parties, not in privity, for harm caused by professional negligence” (Estate of Spivey v Pulley, 138 AD2d 563, 564; see, Deeb v Johnson, 170 AD2d 865; Mali v De Forest & Duer, 160 AD2d 297). Construing the allegations of the complaint and the affidavit of the plaintiff Giovanni Conti in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, as we must on a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action (see generally, Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83; Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d 268; Rovello v Orofino Realty Co., 40 NY2d 633), we agree with the Supreme Court that the[*673] plaintiffs have failed to allege specific facts upon which the existence of an attorney-client relationship or privity between the parties could be inferred. The plaintiffs allege little more than that they arranged and paid for the drafting of a will by the defendants for their aunt, the decedent Lucia Borrometi. The plaintiffs’ status as beneficiaries of that will, and their mere claim that they instructed the defendants to draft the instrument in accordance with the decedent’s expressed intentions, fail to suggest the existence between the parties of the type of relationship necessary to sustain this action. Moreover, the plaintiffs’ conclusory and self-serving allegations of an attorney-client relationship are insufficient for this purpose (see, Sucese v Kirsch, 199 AD2d 718).

We have considered the plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Copertino, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann and Luciano, JJ., concur.