Court Opinion

ID: 9644334
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 20:53:14.407651+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:11.657620
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.
*484STEIN, J., has filed a separate opinion, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Far reversal — Chief Justice PORITZ and Justices HANDLER, POLLOCK, O’HERN, GARIBALDI and COLEMAN — 6.