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