Case Name: Lisa Bishop et al., Appellants, v Rona Maurer, Defendant, and Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow, LLP, et al., Respondents
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2007-09-18
Citations: 9 N.Y.3d 910
Docket Number: 
Parties: Lisa Bishop et al., Appellants, v Rona Maurer, Defendant, and Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow, LLP, et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 9
Pages: 910–911

Head Matter:
[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:
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.