You are here: / / DEFENDANTS-ATTORNEYS WAIVED A DEFENSE WITHOUT THEIR CLIENTS’ CONSENT;...
, , ,

DEFENDANTS-ATTORNEYS WAIVED A DEFENSE WITHOUT THEIR CLIENTS’ CONSENT; THE LEGAL MALPRACTICE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to dismiss the legal malpractice complaint should not have been granted. Defendants-attorneys represented Park West. A driver working for Park West was in an accident and both Park West and the driver were sued. The contract between the driver and Park West indicated the driver was an independent contractor. The attorneys, however, conceded the driver was an employee and Park West settled. The essence of the legal malpractice action was the attorneys’ failure to raise the independent-contractor-defense to Park West’s liability. The First Department noted that the evidence indicated the driver may in fact have been Park West’s employee, but that cannot be decided at the motion-to-dismiss stage. The only relevant question for the motion to dismiss is whether the complaint stated a cause of action for legal malpractice:

The motion court improperly held that plaintiffs failed to state a cause of action for legal malpractice against defendants. To state a claim for legal malpractice, a “plaintiff must show that (1) the attorney was negligent; (2) the attorney’s negligence was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s losses; and (3) plaintiff suffered actual damages” … . Moreover, an “attorney’s conduct or inaction is the proximate cause of a plaintiff’s damages if but for the attorney’s negligence the plaintiff would have succeeded on the merits of the underlying action or would not have sustained actual and ascertainable damages” … .

Here, plaintiffs argue that but for defendants’ negligence in waiving Park West’s independent contractor defense in the underlying action, without their consent and without disclosing conflicts in their representation of several defendants in the action, they would not have been compelled to settle the action, and they would not have been held vicariously liable for [the driver’s] negligence. Park W. Exec. Servs., Inc. v Gallo Vitucci & Klar, LLP, 2026 NY Slip Op 00428, First Dept 1-29-26

Practice Point: The question at the motion-to-dismiss stage is whether the complaint states a cause of action, not whether the elements of the cause of action can be proven. Here the defendants-attorneys’ waiver of a defense without their client’s consent stated a cause of action for legal malpractice. Whether that defense would hold up at trial is not relevant to a dismissal for failure state a cause of action.​

 

You might also like
THE FACT THAT THE PEOPLE WERE HELPING THE COMPLAINANT PROCURE A U VISA WHICH WOULD ALLOW THE COMPLAINANT TO STAY IN THE US AND APPLY FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCE WAS BRADY MATERIAL WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO THE DEFENSE; U VISAS ARE AVAILABLE TO ALIENS WHO SUFFER ABUSE FROM CRIMINAL ACTIVITY; CONVICTIONS REVERSED AND INDICTMENTS DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF NEGLECT AND DERIVATIVE NEGLECT FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE FOOD, CLOTHING AND SHELTER; EVIDENCE SUPPORTED EDUCATIONAL NEGLECT AND DERIVATIVE NEGLECT, DESPITE MOTHER’S HOME-SCHOOLING EFFORTS, TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT). ​
THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE FORFEITURE OF THE VEHICLE USED FOR FOOD VENDING WITHOUT A LICENSE IS “PUNITIVE” IN NATURE AND VIOLATES THE “EXCESSIVE FINES” CLAUSES OF THE NEW YORK STATE AND UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONS; THE FINES IMPOSED FOR THE FOOD VENDING VIOLATION WERE $2600 AND THE VALUE OF THE VEHICLE IS $40,000 (FIRST DEPT).
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE REJECTED PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S OPINION BECAUSE SHE WAS A REGISTERED NURSE, NOT A DOCTOR; THE REGISTERED NURSE WAS QUALIFIED TO OFFER AN OPINION ON FALL PREVENTION; AN EXPERT’S QUALIFICATIONS SPEAK TO THE WEIGHT OF THE OPINION EVIDENCE, NOT ADMISSIBILITY (FIRST DEPT).
Unsworn Juror Properly Dismissed Based Upon the “Two-Hour-Trial-Delay” Rule
Theories Not Included in Notice of Claim Precluded
Water Tracked In from Sidewalk Cleaning Raised Question of Fact About Creation of a Dangerous Condition in a Slip and Fall Case—Open and Obvious Condition Relieves Owner of Duty to Warn But Not Duty to Keep Premises Safe
​ THE ATTEMPT TO HOLD DEFENDANT PLUMBING COMPANY LIABLE FOR THE LEAK WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL RELIED ON PURE SPECULATION; THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR FAILS BECAUSE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OVER THE BUILDING’S PLUMBING (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DEFENDANT BASED HIS DECISION TO PLEAD GUILTY, IN PART, ON INACCURATE INFORMATION... EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE IN AN INSURANCE POLICY ARE STRICTLY CONSTRUED AGAINST...