You are here: / Attorneys
, ,

In Spite of Settlement of Underlying Action, the Legal Malpractice Case Alleging Failure to Adequately Investigate Can Go Forward

Plaintiff was attacked and injured in the lobby of his building.  He hired an attorney to bring a premises liability action.  The action was ultimately settled, but plaintiff brought a legal malpractice action against the defendant attorney alleging the attorney did not adequately investigate the security of the building.  The First Department determined that plaintiff, who was described as unsophisticated in legal matters, had stated a cause of action because the defendant attorney admitted he had relied entirely on a brief conversation with the plaintiff about the security situation at the building before recommending settlement.  The First Department explained the relevant principles as follows:

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. Furthermore, defendant says he told plaintiff, when he conveyed the settlement offer, that it was a “difficult liability case.” It is difficult to understand, on the record before us, how he made that assessment without going to the building, or speaking to the superintendent. Angeles v Aronsky, 2013 NY Slip Op 05955, 1st Dept 9-24-13

 

Conflicting Evidence About Whether Attorney Discharged for Cause (Thereby Prohibiting Recovery of Attorneys Fees) Required Hearing

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have ruled that an attorney was not discharged for cause, thereby entitling the attorney to attorneys fees, without a hearing, because there was conflicting evidence on the issue.  The court explained when an attorney who has been discharged is entitled to attorneys fees:

A client has “an absolute right, at any time, with or without cause, to terminate the attorney-client relationship by discharging the attorney” … . Where the discharge is without cause, the attorney may recover the reasonable value of his or her services in quantum meruit … . In contrast, “[a]n attorney who is discharged for cause . . . is not entitled to compensation or a lien” … . An attorney who violates a disciplinary rule may be discharged for cause and is not entitled to fees for any services rendered … .

“Where there are conflicting claims as to . . . whether an outgoing attorney was discharged with or without cause, a hearing is necessary to resolve such dispute”… . Schultz v Hughes, 2013 NY slip Op 05891, 2nd Dept 9-18-13

 

, , ,

Opening Statement Provided Grounds for Dismissal of False Arrest/Malicious Prosecution Action

The Second Department affirmed Supreme Court’s grant of a judgment as a matter of law to the defendant in a false arrest/malicious prosecution case based upon plaintiff’s counsel’s opening statement. In the opening, counsel stated the defendant had been arrested after the eyewitness victim made an in-person identification of the plaintiff to a police officer.  Because the eyewitness identification provided probable cause for the arrest, the false arrest and malicious prosecution causes of action were not viable:

An application for judgment as a matter of law may be made at the close of an opposing party’s case, or at any time on the basis of admissions (see CPLR 4401). The grant of such an application prior to the close of the opposing party’s case is generally disfavored … . However, judgment as a matter of law may be warranted prior to the presentation of any evidence if the plaintiff has, “by some admission or statement of fact, so completely compromised his or her case that the court was justified in awarding judgment as a matter of law to one or more defendants”… . * * *

Here, the plaintiff, through his counsel, admitted that the eyewitness victim of the alleged crimes made an in-person identification of the plaintiff to a police officer, which led to his immediate arrest by that officer. This admission by the plaintiff, through his counsel, “so completely compromised” his position that the police lacked probable cause to arrest him, that the Supreme Court was justified in awarding judgment as a matter of law to the City…. Okunubi v City of New York, 2013 NY Slip Op 05886, 2nd Dept 9-18-13

 

, ,

Relationship of Prenuptial Agreement to Temporary Maintenance and Award of Attorneys Fees

The Second Department determined that temporary maintenance was not properly granted in light of the facts (where the prenuptial agreement did not expressly deal with the topic) and legal fees in excess of the limit in the prenuptial agreement were properly granted.  The court explained the relevant analyses as follows:

“As with all contracts, prenuptial agreements are construed in accord with the parties’ intent, which is generally gleaned from what is expressed in their writing” …. “Where a prenuptial agreement is clear and unambiguous on its face, the intent of the parties is gleaned from the four corners of the writing as a whole with a practical interpretation of the language employed so that the parties’ reasonable expectations are met” … .

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the parties’ prenuptial agreement did not expressly preclude an award of temporary maintenance pendente lite, nor did the defendant expressly waive such an award under the terms of the agreement… .   On the record presented, including evidence of the defendant’s expenses, the defendant’s reasonable needs were more than adequately met. Accordingly, under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in directing the plaintiff to pay temporary maintenance in the sum of $1,000 per month… . * * *

Supreme Court properly awarded the defendant interim counsel fees, notwithstanding a provision in the prenuptial agreement limiting, to the sum of $10,000, the plaintiff’s obligation to pay such fees incurred by the defendant in any divorce action. Because of a strong public policy favoring the resolution of matrimonial matters on a level playing field …, the determination of whether to enforce an agreement waiving the right of either spouse to seek an award of an attorney’s fee is to be made “on a case-by-case basis after weighing the competing public policy interests in light of all relevant facts and circumstances both at the time the agreement was entered and at the time it is to be enforced” … . Here, the parties are involved in extensive litigation concerning child custody, a matter not expressly addressed in their prenuptial agreement. Moreover, the plaintiff’s net worth is more than $13 million and his monthly gross income exceeds $45,000, while the defendant has no income other than what she is receiving pursuant to the agreement. Abramson v Gavares, 2013 NY Slip Op 05861, 2nd Dept 9-18-13

 

, ,

In Personal Injury Case, Court Should Not Have Granted Mistrial When Objection Sustained, Lawyer Admonished and Curative Instruction Given

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court’s grant of a mistrial in a slip and fall case.  Plaintiff was injured playing basketball. Plaintiff objected to remarks made by defense counsel in summation which erroneously implied that the doctrine of primary assumption of risk applied.  The trial judge sustained the objection, admonished the lawyer, and gave a curative instruction. After the verdict for the defendant, Supreme Court granted plaintiff’s motion for a mistrial:

The Supreme Court erred in, in effect, granting the plaintiffs’ application for a mistrial since the court had previously properly sustained objections to the subject summation comments, openly admonished counsel, and provided curative instructions, thereby correcting any possible prejudice resulting from the subject summation comments … . Richardson v City of New York, 2013 NY slip Op 05810, 2nd Dept 9-11-13

 

,

County Law Setting Term Limits for District Attorney Preempted by State Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s ruling that the county law limiting the terms of the district attorney is preempted by state law:

The office of district attorney is plainly subject to comprehensive regulation by state law, leaving the counties without authority to legislate in that respect. In this light, we view the limitation on the length of time a district attorney can hold office to be an improper imposition of an additional qualification for the position … .

Permitting county legislators to impose term limits on the office of district attorney would have the potential to impair the independence of that office because it would empower a local legislative body to effectively end the tenure of an incumbent district attorney whose investigatory or prosecutorial actions were unpopular or contrary to the interests of county legislators. The state has a fundamental and overriding interest in ensuring the integrity and independence of the office of district attorney. Matter of Hoerger v Spota, 237, CtApp 8-22-13

 

,

Counsel Should Have Been Disqualified Based On Conflict of Interest—Criteria Explained

In reversing Supreme Court and determining that counsel representing the town must be disqualified for a conflict of interest, the Second Department explained the operative principles:

“The disqualification of an attorney is a matter that rests within the sound discretion of the court” … . A party seeking disqualification of its adversary’s counsel based on counsel’s purported prior representation of that party must establish: “(1) the existence of a prior attorney-client relationship between the moving party and opposing counsel, (2) that the matters involved in both representations are substantially related, and (3) that the interests of the present client and former client are materially adverse” … . “A party’s entitlement to be represented in ongoing litigation by counsel of [its] own choosing is a valued right which should not be abridged absent a clear showing that disqualification is warranted” … . * * *

There is a rebuttable presumption that “where an attorney working in a law firm is disqualified from undertaking a subsequent representation opposing a former client, all the attorneys in that firm are likewise precluded from such representation” … . That presumption may be rebutted by proof that “any information acquired by the disqualified lawyer is unlikely to be significant or material in the [subject] litigation” … . Proof must also be presented that the law firm properly screened the disqualified lawyer from dissemination and receipt of information subject to the attorney-client privilege … .  Matter of Town of Oyster Bay v 55 Motor Ave Co LLC, 2013 NY Slip Op 05636, 2nd Dept 8-14-13

 

,

Burden Upon Police to Determine Whether Defendant Represented by Counsel Explained

In affirming the denial of a motion to vacate a conviction after a hearing (over a substantial dissent), the Third Department explained the burden upon the police to determine whether a defendant is represented by counsel before questioning him. In this case the question was whether defendant’s attorney, who represented defendant in a robbery case resolved by a cooperation agreement and who initially was involved a homicide case in 2003, was still representing the defendant in the homicide case when the defendant was questioned about it in 2006:

Although [defendant’s attorney] clearly participated in the homicide investigation in 2003 and the police were well aware that he had entered into it as defendant’s counsel, the parties agree that there was a genuine lack of clarity …surrounding the question of whether that representation was limited to the cooperation agreement and had terminated once defendant was sentenced in the robbery case.

It is well settled that where, as here, there is any ambiguity as to whether the defendant is represented by counsel, the burden rests squarely on the police to resolve that ambiguity prior to questioning … .  Here, before questioning defendant in 2006, [the police] met with [defendant’s attorney], who told them unequivocally that he no longer represented defendant.  Inasmuch as the police fulfilled their obligation to resolve the ambiguity by determining that [the attorney’s] representation of defendant had terminated prior to questioning him, County Court did not err in concluding that defendant’s right to counsel had not been violated … .  People v McLean, 104691, 3rd Dept, 8-8-13

 

, ,

Criteria for Prohibition Explained

In determining that prohibition did not lie to challenge the appointment of a special district attorney to investigate election law issues, the Second Department explained:

” [A]n article 78 proceeding in the nature of prohibition will not lie to correct procedural or substantive errors of law'” (Matter of Soares v Herrick, 20 NY3d 139, 145, quoting Matter of Schumer v Holtzman, 60 NY2d 46, 51). Rather, “the extraordinary remedy of prohibition may be obtained only when a clear legal right of a petitioner is threatened by a body or officer acting in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity without jurisdiction in a matter over which it has no power over the subject matter or where it exceeds its authorized powers in a proceeding of which it has jurisdiction” … . Even where prohibition is an available remedy, it ” is not mandatory, but may issue in the sound discretion of the court'” … . ” In exercising this discretion, various factors are to be considered, such as the gravity of the harm caused by the excess of power, the availability or unavailability of an adequate remedy on appeal or at law or in equity and the remedial effectiveness of prohibition if such an adequate remedy does not exist'” … .

Prohibition is an available remedy to void the improper appointment of a Special District Attorney pursuant to County Law § 701 when the Special District Attorney is performing the quasi-judicial act of representing the State in its efforts to bring individuals accused of crimes to justice … . However, it is not an available remedy when the Special District Attorney is performing the purely investigative function of investigating “suspicious circumstances” with a view toward determining whether a crime has been committed, since, in such circumstances, his or her acts are to be regarded as executive in nature … . Here, the WFP failed to establish that Special District Attorney Adler was performing a quasi-judicial act. Accordingly, prohibition does not lie.  Matter of Working Families Party v Fisher, 2013 NY slip Op 05578, 2nd Dept 8-7-13

 

,

Exclusion of Defense Counsel’s Colleague from a Wade Hearing Deprived Defendant of His Right to a Public Trial

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Richter, reversed a conviction finding the defendant was denied his right to a public trial. To protect the undercover officer and others, the defendant was excluded from the Wade hearing concerning the validity of the undercover officer’s identification of the defendant.  The trial court, in ordering partial closure of the courtroom, had allowed defense counsel, and colleagues of defense counsel, to be present during the hearing. During the hearing, defense counsel’s officemate was denied entry to the courtroom by the court officer stationed at the door, who had consulted with the sergeant inside the courtroom.  The First Department determined the exclusion of the defendant from the hearing was proper, but the exclusion of the attorney required reversal.  The court wrote:

Here, the undercover was the critical witness, and excluding defense counsel’s colleague from the courtroom during this time was not inconsequential. Furthermore, defense counsel explained that the excluded attorney was his officemate, with whom he had consulted about the case. The court also acknowledged that the excluded attorney had substantial experience in criminal defense cases. Although there would have been a problem even if the attorney had no such experience or connection to the case, the exclusion here was particularly troubling because defense counsel alerted the court that his colleagues might be coming, and the excluded attorney could have been of assistance to defense counsel during this critical phase of the trial … .  *  *  *

…[T]he exclusion of defense counsel’s colleague interfered with the very purpose of the requirement of a public trial. The requirement that the courtroom be open whenever possible and that closure orders be narrowly tailored “is for the benefit of the accused; that the public may see he is fairly dealt with and not unjustly condemned, and that the presence of interested spectators may keep his triers keenly alive to a sense of their responsibility and to the importance of their functions” …. Excluding defense counsel’s experienced colleague, who was familiar with the case, deprived defendant of his right to have this person present to assess the undercover’s testimony, and enabled the People to present the undercover’s testimony without the salutary effects of extra scrutiny.  People v Moise, 2013 NY Slip Op 05550, 1st Dept, 8-6-13

 

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