Court Opinion

ID: 9644343
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 20:53:22.601522+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:45:09.727311
License: Public Domain

STEIN, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I join in the Court’s disposition of this appeal, but not because I agree with its determination that the entire controversy doctrine should not apply to attorney-malpractice claims. Rather, for the reasons stated in my concurring and dissenting opinion in Olds v. Donnelly, 150 N.J. 424, 696 A.2d 633 (1997), also decided today, I would overrule Cogdell v. Hospital Center at Orange, 116 N.J. 7, 560 A.2d 1169 (1989), and consequently no longer would apply the entire controversy doctrine to bar suits against parties omitted from prior litigation.
STEIN, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.
For reversal and remandment — Chief Justice PORITZ and Justices HANDLER, POLLOCK, O’HERN, GARIBALDI and COLEMAN — 6.