Attorneys – Page 26 – New York Appellate Digest

DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED HE WAS NOT REPRESENTED BY THE ATTORNEY WHO PURPORTED TO WAIVE SERVICE OF PROCEES AND PERSONAL JURISDICTION DEFENSES ON BEHALF OF ALL DEFENDANTS; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined that one foreign defendant (Koukis) demonstrated he was not represented by an attorney (Santamarina) who purported to waive all defenses based on service of process or lack of personal jurisdiction on behalf of all defendants. Supreme Court agreed Koukis demonstrated Santamarina did not represent him, but found personal jurisdiction over Koukis pursuant to CPLR 302(a)2). The First Department held the court did not have personal jurisdiction over Koukis:

The motion court correctly found that there was no basis to conclude that Koukis authorized Santamarina to appear and waive all jurisdictional defenses on his behalf … . … Koukis emailed Santamarina, with a copy to his attorney, specifically stating that “I have not authorized you to represent me in any legal or other matters.” Koukis also averred that he never communicated with Santamarina and that he never represented him, and there is no indication in the record that Koukis was even aware of Santamarina for any significant time prior to his … email. The two … emails referenced by the dissent were not from or to Santamarina and made no mention of any representation by Santamarina. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP v Koukis, 2023 NY Slip Op 01863, First Dept 4-11-23

Practice Point: Here defendant demonstrated he was not represented by an attorney who purported to waive service of process and personal jurisdiction defenses on behalf of all defendants.

April 11, 2023

Account Stated, Attorneys, Civil Procedure, Contract Law, Debtor-Creditor

THE AWARD OF PREJUDGMENT INTEREST IN A BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION IS REQUIRED BY CPLR 5001; THE REQUEST FOR PREJUDGMENT INTEREST SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED BASED ON A FIVE-YEAR DELAY IN BRINGING SUIT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff attorney was entitled to prejudgment interest in this breach of contract action against defendant, a former client, seeking payment of plaintiff’s fee for legal services:

… [W]e agree with plaintiff that her motion seeking an award of prejudgment interest should have been granted. Supreme Court faulted plaintiff for waiting until 2020 to commence this action to recover monies owed as a result of a legal representation that ended in 2015 but, as prejudgment interest only compensates the judgment creditor for the loss of use of money he or she was owed and is not a penalty, the “responsibility for the delay [in bringing suit] should not be the controlling factor in deciding whether interest is to be computed” … . Rather, prejudgment interest in a breach of contract action is required by CPLR 5001, running “from the earliest ascertainable date on which the prevailing party’s cause of action existed ‘[or,] if that date cannot be ascertained with precision, . . . from the earliest time at which it may be said the cause of action accrued’ ” … . Supreme Court determined in the April 2022 order that plaintiff’s claim for breach of contract accrued when she completed her legal services on May 23, 2015. Thus, plaintiff was entitled to prejudgment interest running from that date…. O’Keefe v Barra, 2023 NY Slip Op 01829, Third Dept 4-6-23

Practice Point: This was a breach of contract action brought by an attorney against a former client for failure to pay the legal fees. The fact that the attorney stopped representing the client in 2015 and didn’t bring suit until 2020 was not a ground for the denial of prejudgment interest, which is required in breach of contract actions by CPLR 5001. The court noted that prejudgment interest is not a penalty.

April 6, 2023

Attorneys, Civil Procedure, Evidence, Foreclosure

PLAINTIFF FAILED TO SHOW UP FOR THE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION AND A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WAS GRANTED; IN MOVING TO VACATE THE DEFAULT, PLAINTIFF DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF LAW OFFICE FAILURE AND DID NOT EXPLAIN ITS DELAY IN SEEKING TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined plaintiff did not demonstrate an adequate excuse (law office failure) for not attending the settlement conference and plaintiff’s motion to vacate the default judgment should not have been granted:

… [T]he plaintiff’s allegation of law office failure was conclusory and unsubstantiated. In an affirmation in support of the motion … to vacate the order of dismissal, the plaintiff’s counsel described her office’s standard practices and procedures for receiving and processing notices and orders, and posited that her office had not received notice of the scheduled conference because there were “no notes, scanned images, or calendar steps” in the files that she reviewed. The plaintiff … failed to provide an affidavit from anyone with personal knowledge of the purported law office failure, provide any details regarding such failure, or provide any other evidence of the system’s purported breakdown that led to counsel’s nonappearance at the conference … . Moreover, the plaintiff failed to provide a reasonable excuse for its delay in moving to vacate the order of dismissal … . Since the plaintiff failed to proffer a reasonable excuse its default, it is unnecessary to determine whether the plaintiff demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious cause of action (see CPLR 5015[a][1] …). HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Hutchinson, 2023 NY Slip Op 01782, Second Dept 4-5-23

Practice Point: Here the claim that plaintiff missed the settlement conference due to law office failure was not supported by proof from a person with first hand knowledge. The motion to vacate the default judgment should not have been granted.

April 5, 2023

Attorneys, Legal Malpractice, Negligence, Trusts and Estates

ABSENT FRAUD OR COLLUSION, STRICT PRIVITY PRECLUDES THE PROSPECTIVE BENEFICIARIES OF AN ESTATE FROM BRINGING A LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST THE ATTORNEY WHO PLANNED THE ESTATE; THE ATTORNEY OWED NO DUTY TO THE BENEFICIARIES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the malpractice action by the prospective beneficiaries of an estate against the attorney who planned the estate should have been dismissed because there was no privity between the beneficiaries and the attorney:

In the context of estate planning malpractice actions, strict privity applies to preclude a third party, such as beneficiaries or prospective beneficiaries like plaintiffs, from asserting a claim against an attorney for professional negligence in the planning of an estate, absent fraud, collusion, malicious acts or other special circumstances … . While plaintiffs argue their claim against defendant attorneys is couched as one for simple negligence, as opposed to legal malpractice, plaintiffs have not pleaded facts to show that defendant attorneys owed plaintiffs a duty of care in the drafting of their client’s will and trust agreement. The strict privity requirement here protects estate planning attorneys against uncertainty and limitless liability in their practice … . Thus, plaintiffs’ negligence claim is unavailing for lack of factual allegations to demonstrate that defendants owed plaintiffs a duty.

Plaintiffs have not pleaded sufficient factual allegations in their amended complaint to indicate that circumstances of fraud, collusion and/or aiding and abetting exist in this case to override the strict privity rule. Plaintiffs have not alleged fraud with requisite specificity as, inter alia, there are no allegations defendants knowingly made material misrepresentations in the will and trust for the purpose of inducing justifiable reliance by their client (since deceased) upon such misrepresentations, and moreover the allegations made do not support favorable inferences in that regard … . Phillips v Murtha, 2023 NY Slip Op 01767, First Dept 4-4-23

Practice Point: Absent fraud or collusion, strict privity precludes a legal malpractice action by prospective beneficiaries of an estate against the attorney who planned the estate. Here the attorney owed no duty to the prospective beneficiaries.

April 4, 2023

Attorneys, Civil Procedure, Evidence, Judges

PRECLUSION OF EVIDENCE AS A DISCOVERY SANCTION WAS NOT WARRANTED; THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF WILLFUL OR CONTUMACIOUS CONDUCT AND THE SANCTIONED PARTY WAS NOT GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN THE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY ORDERS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the discover sanctions imposed by the judge on plaintiff were not warranted:

… Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion by imposing the drastic sanction of preclusion upon the plaintiff without affording the plaintiff adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard, including on facts relevant to whether the plaintiff’s noncompliance was willful and contumacious. The defendant did not move for sanctions pursuant to CPLR 3126 due to the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the interim order, nor did the court make its own motion or include language in the interim order warning that noncompliance would result in sanctions. The court also made its determination without oral argument, such that it is unclear what opportunity the plaintiff had to explain the circumstances of its noncompliance. …

… [E]ven if the plaintiff had been provided with adequate due process, the Supreme Court still would have improvidently exercised its discretion by, inter alia, precluding the plaintiff from serving further demands and from introducing certain documents. The record contains no showing of “a clear pattern of willfulness and contumacious conduct necessary to justify [such] sanctions” … . There is no indication that the plaintiff “repeated[ly] fail[ed] to comply with court-ordered discovery” or “fail[ed] to comply with court-ordered discovery over an extended period of time” … . Instead, this case involves a “single incident of noncompliance” with a court order, which was insufficient to warrant a sanction as drastic as preclusion … , especially given the policy of resolving cases on their merits and the fact that discovery was still ongoing at the time the court made its determination. Korsinsky & Klein, LLP v FHS Consultants, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 01667, Second Dept 3-29-23

Practice Point; Before precluding evidence as a discovery sanction, there must be a finding of willful and contumacious conduct and the the sanctioned party must be given a chance to explain the failure to comply with discovery orders.

March 29, 2023

Attorneys, Contract Law, Privilege, Trademarks

DEFENDANT’S OFFER TO PROVIDE FALSE TESTIMONY IN A SEPARATE ACTION IS NOT PROTECTED BY THE LITIGATION PRIVILEGE IN THIS RELATED ACTION ALLEGING DEFENDANT’S BREACHED A CONFIDENTIALITY AND NONDISPARAGEMENT AGREEMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Rodriguez, determined defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action should not have been granted. The complaint alleged breach of a confidentiality and nondisparagement agreement (TRB Agreement) which stemmed from a trademark infringement and unfair competition action brought by nonparty Reebok. “… [D]efendant and his attorneys allegedly caused anonymous phone calls to be made to Reebok’s counsel stating that defendant possessed information that TRB [plaintiff] ‘intended to copy Reebok from the get-go.’ Defendant’s attorneys also notified Reebok’s counsel that defendant would comply with a subpoena issued to him. Reebok listed defendant as a witness before trial and detailed defendant’s expected testimony, including allegedly false testimony that TRB intended to create a ‘knockoff’ brand infringing on Reebok’s marks. The description of expected testimony also made clear that defendant had breached the TRB Agreement by disclosing information concerning TRB’s operations and information concerning the Reebok litigation:”

The main issue presented on this appeal is whether plaintiffs’ complaint alleges conduct upon which invocation of the absolute litigation privilege would constitute abuse of the privilege such that its protections should not apply or be withdrawn.

Examination of the applicable law, particularly with respect to plaintiffs’ proposed exception to the privilege, demonstrates that the course of conduct alleged implicates a limited exception analogous to that applied in Posner v Lewis (18 NY3d 566 [2012]) to another absolute privilege. Accordingly, where a party engages in an extortion attempt by threatening to provide false testimony in a separate action if their demands are not accepted, and, following rejection, affirmatively reaches out to the extortion target’s adversaries in the separate litigation, indeed offering to provide false testimony in that action, the absolute litigation privilege will not bar the action. TRB Acquisitions LLC v Yedid, 2023 NY Slip Op 01654, First Dept 3-28-23

Practice Point: Here defendant’s offer to provide false testimony in a separate proceeding was not protected by the litigation privilege in this action alleging defendant’s breach of a confidentiality and nondisparagement agreement.

March 28, 2023

Attorneys, Criminal Law, Evidence

THE PROSECUTOR DID NOT INSTRUCT THE GRAND JURY ON ALL OF THE ELEMENTS OF PROMOTING A SEXUAL PERFORMANCE OF A CHILD AND IMPROPERLY CROSS-EXAMINED THE DEFENDANT IN THE GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS; ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY CONVICTED, THE INDICTMENT WAS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the conviction after trial and dismissing the indictment (without prejudice), determined the prosecutor did not properly instruct the grand jury on the law and improperly cross-examined the defendant in the grand jury proceedings:

… [T]he prosecutor failed to instruct the grand jury, pursuant to the holding in People v Kent (19 NY3d 290 [2012]), that some “affirmative act” is required to prove the crime, and that “viewing computer images of a sexual performance by a child on a computer does not by itself constitute promotion of such images” (CJI2d[NY] Penal Law § 263.15). Although it is well established that a grand jury “need not be instructed with the same degree of precision that is required when a petit jury is instructed on the law” … , we conclude under the circumstances of this case that the deficiencies in the prosecutor’s charge impaired the integrity of the grand jury proceeding and gave rise to the possibility of prejudice. We further conclude that the potential for prejudice was increased by the prosecutor’s cross-examination of defendant during the grand jury presentation in a manner that was “calculated to unfairly create a distinct implication that [defendant] was lying” … . People v Congdon, 2023 NY Slip Op 01622, Fourth Dept 3-24-23

Practice Point: The grand jury should have been instructed that some affirmative act in addition to simply viewing child pornography of a computer is required for the offense of promoting the sexual performance of a child.

Practice Point: The prosecutor increased the prejudice resulting from the improper instruction on the law by improperly cross-examining the defendant in the grand jury proceeding to imply that the defendant was lying.

Practice Point: Even though the defendant was properly convicted at trial, the flaws in the grand jury proceeding required dismissal of the indictment.

March 24, 2023

Attorneys, Criminal Law, Evidence, Immigration Law, Judges

DEFENDANT SUFFICIENTLY RAISED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE AND PREJUDICE ISSUES IN HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BECAUSE HE WAS NOT INFORMED HE COULD BE DEPORTED BASED ON THE GUILTY PLEA; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED THE MOTION WITHOUT A HEARING (FIRST DEPT).

The Frist Department, reversing Supreme Court and recalling and vacating a prior appellate decision, determined defendant sufficiently raised ineffective assistance of counsel and prejudice in his motion to vacate his conviction on the ground he was not informed of the possibility of deportation before entering a guilty plea. The motion should not have been denied without a hearing:

Defendant moved to vacate the judgment of conviction based on Padilla v Kentucky (559 US 356 [2010]), which held that criminal defense attorneys must advise noncitizen clients about the deportation risks of a guilty plea. In light of the affidavits from defendant, defendant’s plea counsel (indicating no recollection or notation that he discussed immigration consequences with defendant), and his sister, as well as motion counsel’s representation that plea counsel admitted in an interview that he was not well-versed in immigration law, defendant presented sufficient evidence that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, such that a hearing was warranted if a sufficient showing was similarly raised as to prejudice.

Regarding whether defendant was prejudiced by counsel’s alleged deficient performance, we also find that defendant’s submissions are sufficient to warrant a hearing. Given the length of time defendant has resided in the United States, his ties to the United States, his lack of ties to the Dominican Republic, and his employment history, defendant demonstrated a reasonable possibility that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and instead proceeded to trial … . People v Guzman-Caba, 2023 NY Slip Op 01593, First Dept 3-23-23

Practice Point: Here the motion to vacate the conviction sufficiently raised ineffective assistance and prejudice issues which warranted a hearing. The defendant presented evidence he was not informed he could be deported based on his guilty plea and demonstrated he was prejudiced by the failure. The judge should have ordered a hearing.

March 23, 2023

Attorneys, Criminal Law, Judges

IF A PREMATURE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS WAS NOT FILED IN GOOD FAITH, THE STATEMENT OF READINESS FOR TRIAL IS ILLUSORY; MATTER REMITTED FOR A DETERMINATION WHETHER THE CERTIFICATE WAS FILED IN GOOD FAITH; THE JUDGE CONSIDERED ONLY WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS PREJUDICED BY THE POST-CERTIFICATE PRODUCTION OF DISCOVERY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, remitting the matter, found the judge applied the wrong criteria for determining whether the People’s premature filling of the certificate of compliance with discovery obligations (CPL 245.50) rendered the ready-for-trial announcement illusory:

… [T]he criminal action was commenced on June 9, 2021 (see CPL 1.20 [17]). The People filed their certificate of compliance and statement of readiness on August 6, 2021. On February 12, 2022, defendant moved to dismiss the indictment on speedy trial grounds, arguing that the People’s failure to provide all of the discovery required by CPL 245.20 rendered the certificate of compliance improper and the statement of readiness illusory. Defendant argued that the People should be charged with the entire eight month period and that the indictment should be dismissed (see CPL 30.30 [1] [a]). The court denied defendant’s motion, concluding that the People’s certificate of compliance was proper because defendant had not been prejudiced by the People’s belated disclosure of certain required discovery and that the statement of readiness therefore was not illusory.

… [T]he court’s use of a prejudice-only standard for evaluating the propriety of the certificate of compliance was error because the clear and unambiguous terms of CPL 245.50 establish that a certificate of compliance is proper where its filing is “in good faith and reasonable under the circumstances” … . On a CPL 30.30 motion, the question is not whether defendant was prejudiced by an improper certificate of compliance … . … In light of the court’s failure to consider whether the People’s certificate of compliance was filed in “good faith and reasonable under the circumstances” despite the belated discovery, we hold the case, reserve decision, and remit the matter to Supreme Court to determine whether the People’s certificate of compliance was proper under the terms of CPL 245.50 and thus whether the statement of readiness was valid. People v Gaskin, 2023 NY Slip Op 01415, Fourth Dept 3-17-23

Practice Point: If the People file a certificate of compliance with discovery obligations before discovery is complete the readiness-for-trial statement may be rendered illusory. The judge must determine whether the certificate was filed in good faith, not whether defendant was prejudiced by the post-certificate discovery.

March 17, 2023

Appeals, Attorneys, Family Law, Judges

A JUDGE MAY NOT ORDER THAT ONLY THE ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD (AFC), AND NOT THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, IS ALLOWED TO DISCUSS MATTERS OF SURRENDER OR ADOPTION WITH THE CHILD; SUCH AN ORDER INTERFERES WITH THE DEPARTMENT’S STATUTORY DUTIES (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court in a matter of first impression in this neglect proceeding, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Clark, determined Family Court could not order the petitioner (Delaware County Department of Social Services) to refrain from discussing matters of surrender or adoption with the child. The attorney for the child (AFC) requested the order which allowed only the AFC to discuss surrender or adoption with the child. The Third Department heard the case as an exception to the mootness doctrine (the order had been vacated, but the issue is likely to recur). The Third Department concluded the order could not stand because it interfered with the petitioner’s statutory duties:

Although we recognize that circumstances may arise where it may be appropriate to allow an attorney for children reasonable time to discuss sensitive matters of importance, such as adoption or surrender, with their child-client before anyone else does, Family Court’s order was not a temporal arrangement to allow the AFC an opportunity to broach the issue with the child. Instead, the order was an outright ban on anyone, including petitioner’s caseworkers, having a discussion with the child regarding issues that are central to the child’s permanency (see Family Ct Act § 1089 [c] [1] [ii]).

Although Family Court attempted to differentiate the issues of surrender and adoption as “a legal issue distinguishable from the assessment of the child’s well-being,” the court construed the issues pertaining to the child’s well-being too narrowly, leaving petitioner in an untenable situation…. According to petitioner, for over a year, it was prevented “from speaking with the child to reassess its understanding of the child’s wishes” relative to respondent’s possible conditional surrender and a subsequent adoption of the child — issues that fall squarely into the category of permanency decisions. Although the child has a right to meaningful representation and to learn about legal issues from the AFC (see Family Ct Act § 241 …), attorneys for children cannot transform such responsibility into a roadblock, as occurred here, preventing petitioner from fulfilling its mandates and planning for the child’s permanency and well-being … . Matter of Michael H. (Catherine I.), 2023 NY Slip Op 01119, Third Dept 3-2-23

Practice Point: Family Court can not order the Department of Social Services to refrain from discussing matters of surrender or adoption with the child. Here the attorney for the child (AFC) asked Family Court for the order allowing only the AFC to discuss surrender or adoption with the child and the request was granted.

March 2, 2023