MARK S. TAYLOR plf-res, v. PASKOFF & TAMBER, LLP def-ap

8965-8966. MARK S. TAYLOR plf-res, v. PASKOFF & TAMBER, LLP def-ap — PASKOFF & TAMBER, LLP Third-Party plf-ap, v. LAURIE GOLDHEIM, Third-Party def-res — Paskoff & Tamber, LLP, New York (Adam Paskoff of counsel), for ap — Andrew Lavoott Bluestone, New York, for Mark S. Taylor and Nina Z. Parks-Taylor, res — Mound Cotton Wollan & Greengrass, New York (Kenneth M. Labbate of counsel), for Laura Goldheim, res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Wooten, J.), entered April 7, 2011, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' legal malpractice cause of action, granted plaintiffs' motion to sever the thirdparty complaint, and granted thirdparty defendant's motion to dismiss the third-party action, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered April 22, 2011, which granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment dismissing defendants' affirmative defense of statute of limitations, and for summary judgment as to liability on the legal malpractice cause of action, unanimously reversed, without costs, on the law, and the motion denied.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

8965-8966. MARK S. TAYLOR plf-res, v. PASKOFF & TAMBER, LLP def-ap — PASKOFF & TAMBER, LLP Third-Party plf-ap, v. LAURIE GOLDHEIM, Third-Party def-res — Paskoff & Tamber, LLP, New York (Adam Paskoff of counsel), for ap — Andrew Lavoott Bluestone, New York, for Mark S. Taylor and Nina Z. Parks-Taylor, res — Mound Cotton Wollan & Greengrass, New York (Kenneth M. Labbate of counsel), for Laura Goldheim, res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Wooten, J.), entered April 7, 2011, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ legal malpractice cause of action, granted plaintiffs’ motion to sever the thirdparty complaint, and granted thirdparty defendant’s motion to dismiss the third-party action, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered April 22, 2011, which granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment dismissing defendants’ affirmative defense of statute of limitations, and for summary judgment as to liability on the legal malpractice cause of action, unanimously reversed, without costs, on the law, and the motion denied.

Plaintiffs stated a viable cause of action for legal malpractice based on defendants’ alleged failure to prepare the proper forms in the underlying private placement adoption (see generally P.T. Bank Cent. Asia, N.Y. Branch v. ABN AMRO Bank N.V., 301 AD2d 373, 375-376 [1st Dept 2003]). Plaintiffs’ argument that, but for the need to serve the subject birth mother with a notice of adoption due to the allegedly invalid extrajudicial consent prepared by defendants, the birth mother would not have challenged the adoption on the grounds of fraud and duress, as well as an invalid consent, was not speculative (cf. Phillips-Smith Specialty Retail Group II v. Parker Chapin Flattau & Klimpl, 265 AD2d 208, 210 [1st Dept 1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 759 [2000]).

MARK S. TAYLOR plf-res, v. PASKOFF & TAMBER, LLP def-ap

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal