Case ID: ny3d_9/html/0910-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[875 NE2d 883, 844 NYS2d 165]
    Lisa Bishop et al., Appellants, v Rona Maurer, Defendant, and Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow, LLP, et al., Respondents.
    Decided September 18, 2007
    APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
    
      Lawrence H. Silverman, New York City, for appellants.
    
      Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, New York City (Roy L. Reardon of counsel), for respondents.
   OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question not answered on the ground that it is unnecessary. It is true that plaintiffs here, as is normally the case, are bound by the estate planning documents decedent signed. Nevertheless, the conclusiveness of the underlying agreement does not absolutely preclude an action for professional malpractice against an attorney for negligently giving to a client an incorrect explanation of the contents of a legal document (see Arnav Indus., Inc. Retirement Trust v Brown, Raysman, Millstein, Felder & Steiner, 96 NY2d 300, 305 [2001]). Here, however, plaintiffs’ complaint is devoid of any nonconclusory allegation that incorrect advice was given.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, etc.