Lederer de Paris Fifth Ave., Inc. v Jordan & Hamburg, LLP

Annotate this Case
Lederer de Paris Fifth Ave., Inc. v Jordan & Hamburg, LLP 2008 NY Slip Op 09462 [57 AD3d 229] December 2, 2008 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Lederer de Paris Fifth Avenue, Inc., Appellant,
v
Jordan and Hamburg, LLP, et al., Respondents. (And Another Action.)

—[*1] Robbins & Associates, P.C., New York (James A. Robbins of counsel), for appellant.

Beekman & Kaufman, LLP, Roslyn Heights (Stephanie J. Kaufman of counsel), for respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara R. Kapnick, J.), entered June 6, 2007, which, in these consolidated actions for legal malpractice and unpaid legal fees, denied plaintiff Lederer de Paris Fifth Avenue's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of defendants' negligence and granted defendants' cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the legal malpractice complaint and on Jordan and Hamburg's claim for unpaid legal fees, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff's contention that the motion court failed to consider plaintiff's principal's deposition testimony is belied by the motion court's observation that none of plaintiff's exhibits, which included the deposition excerpts, was dispositive. In any event, the deposition testimony plaintiff relies on was not sufficient to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Smith v Cohen, 24 AD3d 183 [2005]).

The record supports the motion court's conclusion that Lederer failed to establish that its failure to produce certain documents in the underlying action, resulting in the preclusion order, was the result of defendants' negligence rather than the "intransigence" of plaintiff's principal. In [*2]any event, Lederer fails to show that it suffered any actual damages as a result of defendants' conduct (see Postel v Jaffe & Segal, 237 AD2d 127 [1997]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Nardelli, McGuire, Acosta and DeGrasse, 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.