Bishop v Maurer

Bishop v Maurer 2007 NY Slip Op 06743 [9 NY3d 910] September 18, 2007 Court of Appeals Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, November 14, 2007

[*1] Lisa Bishop et al., Appellants,
v
Rona Maurer, Defendant, and Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow, LLP, et al., Respondents.

Decided September 18, 2007

Bishop v Maurer, 33 AD3d 497, affirmed.

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Lawrence H. Silverman, New York City, for appellants.

Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, New York City (Roy L. Reardon of counsel), for respondents.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question not answered on the ground that it is unnecessary. It is true that plaintiffs here, [*2]as is normally the case, are bound by the estate planning documents decedent signed. Nevertheless, the conclusiveness of the underlying agreement does not absolutely preclude an action for professional malpractice against an attorney for negligently giving to a client an incorrect explanation of the contents of a legal document (see Arnav Indus., Inc. Retirement Trust v Brown, Raysman, Millstein, Felder & Steiner, 96 NY2d 300, 305 [2001]). Here, however, plaintiffs' complaint is devoid of any nonconclusory allegation that incorrect advice was given.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, etc.