Plaintiff's malpractice claim against the Oshman firm should have been dismissed. Plaintiff's personal injury claim remained viable for nearly 2½ years after the Oshman firm was relieved as counsel. Thus, because successor counsel had sufficient time to adequately protect plaintiff's rights, there is no evidence to support a finding that the Oshman firm's alleged negligence proximately caused plaintiff any injury (see, Kozmol v Law Firm of Allen L. Rothenberg,
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
GOLDEN v. CASCIONE
286 A.D.2d 281 (2001)
729 N.Y.S.2d 140
PAULA GOLDEN, Respondent, v. CASCIONE, CHECHANOVER & PURCIGLIOTTI et al., Defendants, and KAPLAN, OSHMAN, HELFENSTEIN & MATZA et al., Appellants. (And a Third-Party Action.)
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
Decided August 30, 2001.
Decided August 30, 2001.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
- No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.