Case Name: Mary-Jo Keane, Respondent, v. John M. Tomsky et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants. (And a Third-Party Action.)
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2002-01-22
Citations: 290 A.D.2d 340
Docket Number: 
Parties: Mary-Jo Keane, Respondent, v John M. Tomsky et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants. (And a Third-Party Action.)
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 290
Pages: 340–340

Head Matter:
Mary-Jo Keane, Respondent, v John M. Tomsky et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants. (And a Third-Party Action.)
[736 NYS2d 221]

Opinion:
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Kapnick, J.), entered on or about November 9, 2000, which denied defendants- appellants' motion to dismiss the complaint as against them pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7), unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Appellants' motion to dismiss was properly denied since the documentary evidence upon which the motion is premised does not establish, as a matter of law, that defendants, plaintiffs attorneys in the underlying action, did not commit actionable malpractice in connection with serving the defendants in that action (see, Ladenburg Thalmann & Co. v Tim's Amusements, 275 AD2d 24:3/246). Concur — Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Buckley, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.