You are here: / / PLAINTIFFS’ LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED;...
, , ,

PLAINTIFFS’ LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; PLAINTIFFS’ 2010 BREACH OF A CONDOMINIUM-SALE CONTRACT ACTION WAS DISMISSED ON STATUTE OF FRAUDS GROUNDS; WHEN A WRITTEN CONTRACT SUBSEQUENTLY SURFACED, DEFENDANT ATTORNEYS DID NOT MOVE TO RENEW, VACATE OR APPEAL THE ORDER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the legal malpractice action should not have been dismissed. Plaintiffs, apparently represented by defendant attorneys, brought a 2010 action for breach of a condominium-sale contract which was dismissed on statute of frauds grounds (no written contract). When the written contract for the condominium sale surfaced, the defendants did not move to renew, vacate or appeal the order:

Regardless of whether the dismissal on statute of frauds grounds was ultimately correct, defendants should have known that the condominium claims, which involved the sale of real property, would be subject to the statute of frauds and thus would require reference to a written contract (General Obligations Law § 5-703[2]); that the statute of frauds could be raised and adjudicated on a motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(5); and that a dismissal under the statute of frauds would be on the merits, thus precluding any future claim for damages on the sale of the condominium … . As a result, with respect to the condominium sale, it cannot be determined as a matter of law that plaintiffs failed to plead a claim for legal malpractice based upon defendants’ actions in litigating the breach of contract claim. Komolov v Popik, 2022 NY Slip Op 01966, First Dept 3-22-22

Practice Point: The defendant attorneys apparently represented plaintiffs in their 2010 action for breach of a condominium-sale contract. The 2010 action was dismissed on statute of frauds grounds. Subsequently a written contract surfaced and defendant attorneys did not move to renew, vacate or appeal the order. Plaintiffs’ legal malpractice complaint should not have been dismissed.

 

You might also like
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WHICH COULD STOP WORK FOR UNSAFE PRACTICES WAS A STATUTORY AGENT OF THE OWNER OR CONSTRUCTION MANAGER FOR PURPOSES OF LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) (FIRST DEPT).
NYC CHARTER DID NOT GIVE THE PUBLIC ADVOCATE AUTHORITY FOR A SUMMARY INQUIRY INTO THE ADEQUACY OF SOFTWARE USED TO TRACK STUDENTS WITH INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION PROGRAMS, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).
AN APPELLATE COURT CANNOT DETERMINE A SUPPRESSION MOTION BASED ON TRIAL EVIDENCE; THE TRIAL EVIDENCE REVEALED THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S APARTMENT MAY HAVE BEEN UNLAWFUL; BASED UPON THE LIMITED INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO DEFENDANT WHEN THE SUPPRESSION MOTION WAS MADE, THE ALLEGATION THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE PERMISSION TO ENTER WAS ENOUGH TO WARRANT A PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING; MATTER REMITTED (FIRST DEPT).
REJECTING THE 2ND DEPARTMENT’S CRITICISM OF THE 1ST DEPARTMENT’S THIRD-PARTY-ASSAULT JURISPRUDENCE, THE 1ST DEPARTMENT HELD THE BROKEN DOOR THROUGH WHICH THE ASSAILANTS GAINED ACCESS TO THE BUILDING WHERE PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS SHOT AND KILLED WAS NOT A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE SHOOTING BECAUSE THE ASSAILANTS WOULD HAVE FOUND A WAY TO ENTER THE BUILDING EVEN IF THE DOOR LOCK WERE WORKING (FIRST DEPT).
A COURT’S LIMIITED REVIEW POWERS RE AN AGENCY’S FINDINGS PURSUANT TO A STATE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW QUALITY ACT ASSESSMENT CLARIFIED, SUPREME COURT’S REJECTION OF AGENCY FINDINGS REVERSED. 
A MUTUAL MISTAKE IN AN AGREEMENT CONCERNING THE PRICE OF SHARES OF STOCK WARRANTED REFORMATION OF THE CONTRACT (FIRST DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY CAUSE OF THE FALL AND ANY DEFECTS IN THE SIDEWALK WERE INSIGNIFICANT.
HABEAS CORPUS PETITIONS STEMMING FROM THE DENIAL OF BAIL IN AN ATTEMPTED MURDER CASE PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST 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

DEFENDANT VIDEO-HOSTING SERVICE, VIMEO, DID NOT BREACH ITS CONTRACT WITH PLAINTIFF... CIVIL SERVICE LAW 75-B SERVES THE SAME PURPOSE AS THE EMPLOYMENT ANTI-RETALIATION...