From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hoffman v. Anolik

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 18, 1998
250 A.D.2d 733 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

May 18, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barasch, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the plaintiff failed to raise a triable question of fact that an attorney-client relationship existed between the defendant and herself ( see, CPLR 3212 [b]). In any event, even assuming there existed the requisite attorney-client relationship, the plaintiff has not made out a prima facie case for legal malpractice. She has failed to establish any negligence on the part of the defendant, much less that, but for his negligence, she would have succeeded in her discrimination claims against her former employers ( see generally, Volpe v. Canfield, 237 A.D.2d 282; Platt v. Portnoy, 220 A.D.2d 652).

The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.

Santucci, J.P., Joy, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Hoffman v. Anolik

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 18, 1998
250 A.D.2d 733 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Hoffman v. Anolik

Case Details

Full title:ALICE HOFFMAN, Appellant, v. IRVING ANOLIK, Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: May 18, 1998

Citations

250 A.D.2d 733 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
672 N.Y.S.2d 785

Citing Cases

Marzuez-Fuentes v. Crump

Thus, a motion for summary judgment will be granted when the facts clearly indicate that one party is without…

Lombardi-Rauchut v. Natale

Thus, a motion for Summary Judgment will be granted when the facts clearly indicate that one party is without…