Sometimes a court opinion sets forth a grand landscape of the facts, the law, and public policy.  These cases are revered forever. They are studied in law school, and provide fodder for generations of law students.  We may not remember the names of the cases, but they remain in memory as mileposts.  The folding box case about privacy rights; the firefighter’s case about whether the municipality owes a duty to landowners to put out a fire, the ancient case over what power the Supreme Court has. 

Sometimes the decision is cryptic and requires ferreting out the facts.  Here is one such case. Zinger v Levinson ; 2010 NY Slip Op 50562(U) ; Decided on April 7, 2010 ; Appellate Term, First Department . What do we gather from this case?  We see that it started in Civil Court, so either the amounts in dispute are less than $ 25000 or it was started by a pro-se litigant who either didn’t want to spend $ 210 for an index number, or didn’t know better.  We see that there no attorney names which suggests a pro-se plaintiff.  We see that the dispute is over succession to a rent stabilized apartment which suggests that plaintiff was the decedent of a parent who lived in a rent stabilized apartment and wanted to move in, and was willing to hire an attorney to try for that right.  We see that the plaintiff didn’t get the apartment and was willing to sue the attorney over this issue.
 

Finally, we see that plaintiff was unable to offer proof of the attorney’s negligence.  Not much going on, but definitely a bad outcome for plaintiff.