Merlin Biomed Asset Management, LLC v Wolf Block Schorr & Solis-Cohen LLP

Annotate this Case
Merlin Biomed Asset Mgt., LLC v Wolf Block Schorr & Solis-Cohen LLP 2005 NY Slip Op 08651 [23 AD3d 243] November 15, 2005 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, January 18, 2006

Merlin Biomed Asset Management, LLC, et al., Appellants,
v
Wolf Block Schorr & Solis-Cohen LLP, et al., Respondents.

—[*1]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula J. Omansky, J.), entered November 1, 2004, which, inter alia, granted defendants' cross motion for partial summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered September 16, 2004, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as superseded by the appeal from the order of November 1, 2004.

The motion court properly concluded that plaintiffs were required to offer expert testimony in support of their claim for legal malpractice that raises issues regarding the standard of care of an attorney drafting purchasing and marketing agreements in the field of hedge funds and financial management companies, a subject that is not part of the jurors' ordinary, daily experience (see Schadoff v Russ, 278 AD2d 222 [2000]). Defendants' expert submission was sufficient to meet their burden that they did not depart from the applicable standard of care (see id.). Since plaintiffs failed to offer expert testimony on the subject, they failed to raise an issue of fact and partial summary judgment was properly granted defendants (see id.; Zeller v Copps, 294 AD2d 683, 684 [2002]). Concur—Marlow, J.P., Nardelli, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.