Opinion
Decided September 18, 2007.
APPEAL, by permission of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, from an order of that Court, entered October 24, 2006. The Appellate Division (1) affirmed an order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Jane Goodman, J.), entered October 14, 2004, which, upon reargument, had adhered to a prior order of that court (Emily Jane Goodman, J.), entered November 20, 2003, granting defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' legal malpractice cause of action, and (2) dismissed the appeal from the order entered November 20, 2003, as superseded by the order entered October 14, 2004. The following question was certified by the Appellate Division: "Was the order of Supreme Court, as affirmed by this Court, properly made?"
Before: Chief Judge KAYE and Judges CIPARICK, GRAFFEO, READ, SMITH, PIGOTT and JONES concur in memorandum.
Plaintiff commenced a legal malpractice action alleging that defendants failed to perceive a conflict of interest in representing him and his wife regarding estate planning and failed to inform him as to the provisions of the estate planning instruments he executed.
Bishop v. Maurer, 33 AD3d 497, affirmed.
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
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, 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). Here, however, plaintiffs' complaint is devoid of any nonconclusory allegation that incorrect advice was given.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals ( 22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, etc.