From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Larson v. Crucet

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 20, 1984
105 A.D.2d 651 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Opinion

November 20, 1984

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Alvin Klein, J.).


The law is well established that in order to succeed in a legal malpractice suit, the plaintiff must demonstrate that he or she would have recovered in the underlying action but for the negligence of the attorney. ( Parker Chapin Flattan Klimpl v Daelen Corp., 59 A.D.2d 375; Schmitt v McMillan, 175 App. Div. 799.) In that regard, proof of the collectability of the judgment is part of the plaintiff's affirmative case. (See Reynolds v Picciano, 29 A.D.2d 1012.) The fact that defendant pleaded as a defense that the plaintiff would have been unable to obtain or collect a judgment against the defendants in the underlying personal injury action in no way relieves the plaintiff from its burden. in that respect.

Concur — Asch, J.P., Silverman, Milonas and Kassal, JJ.


Summaries of

Larson v. Crucet

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 20, 1984
105 A.D.2d 651 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)
Case details for

Larson v. Crucet

Case Details

Full title:CATHERINE LARSON, Appellant, v. THOMAS W. CRUCET et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Nov 20, 1984

Citations

105 A.D.2d 651 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Citing Cases

Lindenman v. Kreitzer

However, before we reverse the denial of plaintiffs' motion to reopen the case and remand for further…

Kituskie v. Corbman

A review of case law in the Commonwealth shows that the issue of whether collectibility of damages in an…