You are here: / / Failure to File Retainer Agreement In Medical Malpractice Action Remedied...
, , ,

Failure to File Retainer Agreement In Medical Malpractice Action Remedied Nunc Pro Tunc

The Second Department determined Supreme Court correctly granted leave to file a retainer agreement in a medical malpractice action, nunc pro tunc.  The attorney (Siegel) was the second attorney retained in the matter (to handle the trial).  After the case settled, the second attorney sued the first (Glassman) over the amount of the fee.  The second attorney (Siegel) , however, had not filed a retainer agreement and made a motion to file late:

Every attorney practicing law in the Second Judicial Department who is retained with respect to, inter alia, a medical malpractice action must file a retainer statement with the OCA within 30 days after being retained … . Additionally, every “attorney retained by another attorney, on a contingent fee basis, as trial or appeal counsel or to assist in the preparation, investigation, adjustment or settlement of any such action, claim or proceeding shall, within 15 days from the date of such retainer, sign personally and file with the [OCA] a written statement of such retainer” (22 NYCRR 691.20[a][3]). Filing a retainer statement with the OCA is a condition precedent to the receipt of a fee for any case to which 22 NYCRR 691.20 applies … . Attorneys failing to correctly file a retainer statement with the OCA pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.20 are precluded from asserting breach of contract causes of action for outstanding fees, and are limited to suit in quantum meruit … . However, a late filing of a retainer statement is sufficient to preserve an attorney’s right to recover fees where that attorney first obtains leave of court to file the statement nunc pro tunc … .

In exercising its discretion to extend the time to file the subject retainer statement pursuant to CPLR 2004, a court may consider such factors as the length of the delay, the reason or excuse for the delay, and any prejudice to the person opposing the motion … . Here, the reason for the delay, in effect, Siegel’s law office failure, was an isolated, inadvertent mistake … and there is no prejudice to Glassman… . Siracusa v Fitterman, 2013 NY slip Op 07025, 2nd Dept 10-30-13

 

You might also like
STATEMENT IN HOSPITAL RECORD ATTRIBUTED TO PLAINTIFF WAS ADMISSIBLE AS PART OF A BUSINESS RECORD AND AS A PARTY ADMISSION, STATEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED FROM TRIAL.
Criteria for Appointment of Temporary Receiver to Wind Up Dissolution of Partnership Not Met
PLAINTIFF BANK SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT BY ADDING PARTIES AND TO EXTEND THE REACH OF THE ACTION TO THE ENTIRE PREMISES WHICH HAD BEEN ACQUIRED BY ADVERSE POSSESSION (SECOND DEPT).
THE LANDLORD DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF ANY PRIOR ROBBERIES OCCURRING IN THE BUILDING, THEREFORE THE TENANT-ROBBERY-VICTIM’S COMPLAINT WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
Town Board Is Not a Proper Party In an Action Seeking Review of a Determination Made by the Town’s Zoning Board
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE, PURSUANT TO THE TOWN CODE, FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE AREA OF THE SIDEWALK WHERE PLAINTIFF TRIPPED OVER A PROTRUDING BOLT; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE DEFENDANT’S CONCLUSORY AFFIDAVIT BLAMING THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT ON HIS PRIOR ATTORNEY WAS NOT A SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR VACATING THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
Mother’s Failure to Seek Immediate Medical Assistance for Child Fatally Injured by Her Boyfriend Supported a Severe Abuse Finding and a Derivative Severe Abuse Finding—Amendment to Family Court Act 1051 (e), Removing the “Diligent Efforts” Requirement, Imposed Retroactively to Support Severe Abuse Finding

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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Vacation of a Note of Issue Does Not Constitute Marking Off the Calendar/One... No Ambiguity in Contract; No Resort to Extrinsic Evidence