Opinion
January 21, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Aronin, J.).
Order affirmed, with costs.
We agree with Special Term that the circumstances herein do not constitute a basis for departing from the general rule that "absent privity of contract, the simple omission by an attorney to prepare a new will or codicil naming a new beneficiary of some part of the decedent's estate does not, by itself, render the attorney liable to the alleged beneficiary" (Victor v Goldman, 74 Misc.2d 685, 686, affd 43 A.D.2d 1021). As we recently noted, "privity remains a viable factor in legal malpractice cases in this State" (Calamari v Grace, 98 A.D.2d 74, 79). Mangano, J.P., Bracken, Weinstein, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.