Jacobs v Kay
2008 NY Slip Op 03710 [50 AD3d 526]
April 24, 2008
Appellate Division, First Department
As corrected through Wednesday, June 18, 2008


William Jacobs et al., Appellants,
v
Richard L. Kay et al.,Respondents.

[*1]Andrew Lavoott Bluestone, New York, for appellants.

Pryor Cashman LLP, New York (Sanford M. Goldman of counsel), for respondents.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered February 26,2007, dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

After settling with the executrix their objections to the probate of their father's will and trust,plaintiffs commenced this action against the attorneys for alleged fraudulent misrepresentation,fraudulent concealment, legal malpractice, breach of contract and for treble damages, in thepreparation of those instruments. Not only does New York not recognize a right of action fortortious interference with prospective inheritance (see Vogt v Witmeyer, 87 NY2d 998[1996]), but having earlier settled their objections, plaintiffs may not now seek, in effect, tochallenge indirectly the validity of the will and trust by suing these defendants with whom theyhad absolutely no privity.

Absent a contractual relationship between the professional and the party claiming injury, thepotential for liability "is carefully circumscribed" (William Iselin & Co. v Mann JuddLandau, 71 NY2d 420, 425 [1988]). A viable tort claim against a professional requires thatthe underlying relationship between the parties be one of contract or the bond between them soclose as to be the functional equivalent of contractual privity (Ossining Union Free SchoolDist. v Anderson LaRocca Anderson, 73 NY2d 417 [1989]). However, plaintiffs have notpleaded any facts setting forth the existence of a contractual relationship or the functionalequivalent thereof between themselves and defendants. Moreover, they have no viable cause ofaction for treble [*2]damages under Judiciary Law § 487,since defendants' purported deceit did not occur during the course of a pending judicialproceeding (see Costalas v Amalfitano, 305 AD2d 202, 203-204 [2003]).Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.