You are here: / / Attorney’s Failure to Investigate Client’s Premises Liability Claim Bef...
, ,

Attorney’s Failure to Investigate Client’s Premises Liability Claim Before Encouraging Settlement Raised Issue of Fact About Malpractice

In this legal malpractice action, the trial court ruled plaintiff had raised issues of fact concerning whether his attorney failed to adequately investigate the plaintiff’s premises liability claim before encouraging the plaintiff to settle.  In affirming the trial court, the First Department noted that the settlement agreement did not bar the legal malpractice action:

For a claim for legal malpractice to be successful, “a plaintiff must establish both that the defendant attorney failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession which results in actual damages to a plaintiff and that the plaintiff would have succeeded on the merits of the underlying action but for’ the attorney’s negligence” …. A client is not barred from a legal malpractice action where there is a signed “settlement of the underlying action, if it is alleged that the settlement of the action was effectively compelled by the mistakes of counsel” ….   *  *  *

In this specific case, given plaintiff’s lack of sophistication and his limited education, defendant’s statement that he never conducted any investigation, except for speaking to plaintiff for a very limited time, raises a question of fact as to whether defendant adequately informed himself about the facts of the case before he conveyed the settlement offer.  Angeles v Aronsky, 2013 NY Slip Op 02454, 8925, 100091/09, 1st Dept, 4-11-13

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, A CABLE TRAY FELL ON HIS HEAD FROM THE TOP OF TWO LADDERS, A SUBCONTRACTOR WAS LIABLE BECAUSE THE CONTRACT DELEGATED THE AUTHORITY TO CONTROL THE WORK TO THE SUBCONTRACTOR, THE LESSEE WAS LIABLE AS AN “OWNER” WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FIRST DEPT).
POLICE OFFICER’S EXPECTATION THAT DEFENDANT WOULD BE ARRESTED DID NOT HAVE ANY BEARING ON WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS IN CUSTODY, MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENT PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).
INSURER’S ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION REPORT IS PRIVILEGED AND NOT DISCOVERABLE (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER NEGLIGENT WAXING WAS CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL.
IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE REQUESTED DISCOVERY ABOUT THE DESIGN OF THE REAR STAIRS OF A BUS WAS BURDENSOME, REPRESENTATIVES OF DEFENDANTS ALLOWED TO BE PRESENT WHEN BUS INSPECTED BY PLAINTIFF (FIRST DEPT).
IN COMPUTING THE AMOUNT OWED IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE REFEREE RELIED ON AN AFFIDAVIT FROM A BANK EMPLOYEE WHICH DID NOT INCLUDE THE RELATED BUSINESS RECORDS; THE AFFIDAVIT THEREFORE WAS INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).
Heavy Shelves Bolted to the Wall Constituted a “Structure” and Dismantling the Shelves Constituted “Demolition” within the Meaning of the Labor Law
SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE DEFERRED TO THE NYC BOARD OF STANDARDS AND APPEALS’ INTERPRETATION OF AN AMBIGUOUS ZONING RESOLUTION WHICH ALLOWED THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 55 STORY CONDOMINIUM BUILDING; THE BUILDING IS COMPLETE AND THE DOCTRINE OF MOOTNESS APPLIES TO PRECLUDE THE APPEAL (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

Assets Allegedly Wrongly Appropriated by Fiduciary Deemed “Asset-Transfers”... Son Entitled to Remain in Deceased Mother’s Apartment​