You are here: / / Failure to Appeal Dismissal of Underlying Medical Malpractice Action Did...
, , ,

Failure to Appeal Dismissal of Underlying Medical Malpractice Action Did Not Preclude Related Legal Malpractice Action

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, allowed a legal malpractice action to go forward, finding that the plaintiff’s failure to appeal the dismissal of the underlying federal medical malpractice action did not preclude the related legal malpractice action. In the federal action, the court determined a physician was an independent contractor, not a government employee, and therefore had to be named individually as a defendant. The action against the physician was dismissed as time-barred. The dissent argued “if plaintiff had been successful in his appeal of the underlying federal action, we would not have a subsequent legal malpractice case.”  In holding that the failure to appeal the federal ruling did not preclude the legal malpractice action, the Fourth Department distinguished a prior case, Rupert v Gates and Adams, PC, 83 AD3d 1383, relied upon by the defendants:

We reject defendants’ invitation to extend the ruling in Rupert to a per se rule that a party who voluntarily discontinues an underlying action and forgoes an appeal thereby abandons his or her right to pursue a claim for legal malpractice. …

Although the precise question presented herein appears to be an issue of first impression in New York, we note that several of our sister states have rejected the per se rule advanced by defendants herein… .  … [S]uch a rule would force parties to prosecute potentially meritless appeals to their judicial conclusion in order to preserve their right to commence a malpractice action, thereby increasing the costs of litigation and overburdening the court system ….  The additional time spent to pursue an unlikely appellate remedy could also result in expiration of the statute of limitations on the legal malpractice claim ….  Further, requiring parties to exhaust the appellate process prior to commencing a legal malpractice action would discourage settlements and potentially conflict with an injured party’s duty to mitigate damages… .  Grace v Law, et al, 625, 4th Dept 7-19-13

 

You might also like
MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, CIVIL CONSPIRACY CLAIM PROPERLY ALLEGED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE TOWN BOARD’S FAILURE TO PROVIDE ITS REASONS FOR ITS RULING IN THIS VARIANCE PROCEEDING AND THE BOARD’S FAILURE TO MAKE ADEQUATE FINDINGS OF FACT REQUIRED THE APPELLATE COURT TO REMIT THE MATTER FOR THE SECOND TIME UNDER THREAT OF SANCTIONS (FOURTH DEPT).
LAW FIRM’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE WHERE AN ACTION HAS BEEN SETTLED EXPLAINED.
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT MEET FACE TO FACE WITH DEFENDANT BEFORE THREE MONTHLY MORTGAGE PAYMENTS WERE MISSED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
Plaintiff, a Pedestrian, Was Injured When a Traffic Sign Struck by a Car Broke Off and Hit Her—County Owed Plaintiff a Duty to Properly Install the Sign—Question of Fact Raised Whether Improper Installation of a “Break Away” Sign Was a Proximate Cause of the Plaintiff’s Injuries
DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF ASSAULT THIRD BASED UPON HIS LOSING CONTROL OF THE CAR AND CRASHING, INJURING A PASSENGER; THE “CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE” ELEMENT OF ASSAULT THIRD WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE; CONVICTION REVERSED UNDER A “WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE” ANALYSIS (FOURTH DEPT).
THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED PLAINTIFF WAS DOING ROUTINE MAINTENANCE WHICH WAS NOT PART OF A CONSTRUCTION OR RENOVATION PROJECT WHEN HE WAS ELECTROCUTED AND FELL FROM A LADDER; THEREFORE THE LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION WERE DISMISSED; THE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED PLAINTIFF WAS “CLEANING” WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240(1) AND WAS DOING CONSTRUCTION OR RENOVATION WORK WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 241(6) (FOURTH DEPT).
THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT POLICE OFFICER ACTED WITH RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS IN THIS EMERGENCY-VEHICLE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Fact that Medical Guidelines May Be Available to the Public Does Not Warrant... Pecuniary Loss Defined