You are here: / Attorneys
,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT-WIFE’S ATTORNEY IN THIS DIVORCE ACTION MISSED A COUPLE OF THE 60-DAY BILLING PERIODS, THE ATTORNEY WAS IN SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH 22 NYCRR 1400.3(9) AND THE WIFE’S REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED; $135,315.90 AWARDED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant-wife’s attorney was in substantial compliance with the billing requirements of 22 NYCRR 1400.3(9) and the wife’s request for attorney’s fess in this divorce action should not have been denied:

… [T]he defendant’s attorney was in substantial compliance with 22 NYCRR 1400.3(9) … . Although the attorney for the defendant was dilatory in sending an initial invoice approximately 154 days after he was retained, the billable hours during that interval were itemized and accounted for, and the remainder of the invoices he sent all complied with the 60-day rule. Under the circumstances, the court should not have precluded the defendant from recovering an award of attorneys’ fees for failure to comply with 22 NYCRR 1400.3(9), and we conclude that the plaintiff should be responsible for the balance of the defendant’s attorneys’ fees and expenses, net of his prior payments, less $3,487.50 related to a duplicative motion for expenses, which amounts to $135,315.90. Spataro v Spataro, 2022 NY Slip Op 07470, Second Dept 12-28-22

Practice Point: 22 NYCRR 1400.3(9) requires attorneys in divorce proceeding to bill every 60 days. Here the attorney missed a couple of the 60-day billing periods but the client’s request for attorney’s fees should not have been denied on that ground. The appellate division awarded $135,315.90.

 

, , , ,

THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE, INCLUDING THE LANDLORD, WERE AWARE OF THE DOG’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES; THE PRE-DISCOVERY SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS PREMATURE; THE ACTION WAS NOT FRIVOLOUS; THE DEFENDANTS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants in this dog-bite case were not entitled to summary judgment, the action was not frivolous, and defendants were not entitled to attorney’s fees. In addition, the summary judgment motion, made before discovery, was deemed premature. The court found there were questions of fact whether defendants, including the landlord (held to an ordinary negligence standard) were aware of the dog’s vicious propensities. The relationships among the parties and the unsuccessful arguments made by defendants in support of summary judgment are too detailed to fairly summarize here:

… “[A]n owner of a dog may be liable for injuries caused by that animal only when the owner had or should have had knowledge of the animal’s vicious propensities” … . “Once such knowledge is established, an owner faces strict liability for the harm the animal causes as a result of those propensities” … . “Strict liability can also be imposed against a person other than the owner of an animal which causes injury if that person harbors or keeps the animal with knowledge of its vicious propensit[ies]” … .

… “[A] landlord who, with knowledge that a prospective tenant has a vicious dog which will be kept on the premises, nonetheless leases the premises to such tenant without taking reasonable measures, by pertinent provisions in the lease or otherwise, to protect persons who might be on the premises from being attacked by the dog may be held liable [under a negligence standard] to a person who while thereafter on the premises is bitten by the dog” … . When, “during the term of the leasehold[,] a landlord becomes aware of the fact that [the] tenant is harboring an animal with vicious propensities, [the landlord] owes a duty to protect third persons from injury . . . if [the landlord] ‘had control of the premises or other capability to remove or confine the animal’ ” … . Michael P. v Dombroski, 2022 NY Slip Op 07318, Fourth Dept 12-23-22

Practice Point: A landlord who is aware of a dog’s vicious propensities can be held liable in a dog-bite case under a standard negligence theory.

 

,

DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO FILE A VALID MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA; THE MOTION WAS MISCHARACTERIZED AS A MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION AND WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY NECESSARY AFFIDAVITS; DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE WAS VACATED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, vacating defendant’s sentence, determined defendant’s second counsel was ineffective in filing a motion to withdraw the plea:

Instead of filing a motion to withdraw defendant’s plea pursuant to CPL 220.60 (3), second counsel moved to vacate the judgment of conviction pursuant to CPL 440.10 (1) (h) based on generalized allegations, supported by his own “information and belief,” that first counsel had failed to properly investigate the facts, interview witnesses, assess the strength of the People’s case, file any motions or inform defendant of the consequences of pleading guilty. The People opposed the motion, noting that, inasmuch as defendant had yet to be sentenced , a motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 was premature. In reply, second counsel agreed that the motion was premature, presented the same allegations and asked that County Court nonetheless exercise its discretion to permit defendant to withdraw his plea, prompting the People to oppose the motion on the merits. By order entered September 14, 2017, County Court denied defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion to vacate the judgment of conviction as premature; alternatively, the court treated the motion as one to withdraw the plea and denied it, noting, among other things, that the motion was deficient as it was supported only by second counsel’s affirmation. * * *

Although second counsel’s mischaracterization of the subject motion does not, in and of itself, constitute ineffective assistance of counsel … , the motion was defective in other ways. Specifically, despite County Court granting second counsel two weeks to prepare a motion to withdraw defendant’s plea, he filed the motion in one day. In rushing his submission, second counsel failed to support the motion with affidavits from either defendant or first counsel, and he failed to incorporate any of the allegations that defendant made through the PSI; rather, second counsel opted to rely, exclusively, on his own “information and belief” and submitted a general, pro forma motion that was facially deficient. People v Williams, 2022 NY Slip Op 07265, Third Dept 12-22-22

Practice Point: Defense counsel was ineffective for failure to file a proper motion to withdraw the plea. The motion was mischaracterized as a motion to vacate the conviction and was not supported by necessary affidavits based upon first-hand knowledge.

 

, , ,

THE REASONS FOR THE DENIAL OF ATTORNEY’S FEES AFTER PETITIONER’S SUCCESSFUL FOIL REQUEST MERELY PARROTED THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE FOR THE LAW-ENFORCEMENT AND SAFETY EXEMPTIONS WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTING FACTS; THEREFORE ATTORNEY’S FEES SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner was entitled to attorney’s fees associated with his ultimately successful FOIL request for the video of the incident which was the basis for the prison disciplinary proceedings. Attorney’s fees were denied on the ground that the respondent had a reasonable basis for denying the request for the video. However the respondent’s reasons for the denial merely parroted the relevant statutory language for the law-enforcement and safety exemptions, which was deemed insufficient:

In denying petitioner’s initial FOIL request and the subsequent administrative appeal, respondent merely quoted the language from the Public Officers Law. It gave no factual explanation or justification for its blanket denial to release the video footage. Although respondent provided an affirmation by its general counsel in this CPLR article 78 proceeding, the affirmation once again merely quoted the statutory language and failed to explain or demonstrate how the footage was compiled for any law enforcement purposes. In a conclusory and speculative fashion, the affirmation referenced some investigations and adjudications, but failed to provide any factual details or explanation of same. Moreover, the affirmation failed to detail how the release of the video footage would affect or interfere with said investigations and adjudications. “[R]espondent[], by merely parroting the statutory language and otherwise failing to provide any adequate sort of harm risked by disclosure, ha[s] failed to meet [its] burden of proving that disclosure of the records would interfere with a pending law enforcement investigation” … .

The affirmation was equally deficient with regard to the safety exemption (see Public Officers Law § 87 [2] [f]), in that it was neither particularized nor specific and failed to articulate an explanation as to how the release of the video footage could potentially endanger or impair the lives of correction officers or their families. Matter of Prisoners’ Legal Servs. of N.Y. v New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 2022 NY Slip Op 07277, Third Dept 12-22-22

Practice Point: In order to deny attorney’s fees after a successful FOIL request, the respondent must demonstrate a reasonable basis for the initial denial of the request. Merely parroting the statutory language for the law-enforcement and safety exemptions is not sufficient. The reasons must be fact-based.

 

,

DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL MISCALENDARED THE RETURN DATE FOR THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THE MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT DUE TO LAW OFFICE FAILURE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment due to law office failure should have been granted. Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for summary judgment had been granted:

The law office failure of miscalendaring dates has been deemed a reasonable excuse … . Here, defendant’s counsel miscalendared the return date of plaintiff’s summary judgment motion for July 1, 2021 rather than June 1, 2021. Counsel explained that it is his regular practice to calendar motion dates once a return date is set; to review his calendar daily and on or about the first of each month; and that he had been working part-time at home with a less robust system compared to his office … . Accordingly, defendant proffered a reasonable excuse in the form of law office failure and should not be deprived of its day in court for counsel’s error … .  First Am. Tit. Ins. Co. v Successful Abstract, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 07186, First Dept 12-20-22

Practice Point: Miscalendaring the return date for the motion for summary judgment was deemed a reasonable excuse for the default (law office failure).

 

,

THE ELECTRONIC LEGAL RESEARCH (LEXISNEXIS) CONTRACT SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY WAS NOT PROCEDURALLY OR SUBSTANTIVELY UNCONSCIONABLE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the legal research contract (LexisNexis) signed by plaintiff-attorney was not procedurally or substantively unconscionable:

A determination of unconscionability generally requires a showing that the contract was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable when made, namely, some showing of “an absence of meaningful choice on the part of one of the parties together with contract terms which are unreasonably favorable to the other party” … . Procedural unconscionability examines the circumstances at the time an agreement was entered into, including the commercial setting, whether deceptive or high-pressured tactics were employed, whether a party had a reasonable opportunity to understand the terms of the contract, which party drafted the contract, whether fine print was used in an agreement as to material terms, whether there was an alternative supply for the goods or services in question, the experience and education of the party claiming unconscionability, whether there was disparity in the bargaining power, and whether a contract of adhesion is at issue … . Whether a contract is procedurally unconscionable presents a question of law for the court although it is a fact-based determination … .

… Plaintiff is an attorney, who did not assert any mental deficiencies, but only alleged duress from defendants’ conduct in pursuing his signature on the 2020 Agreement. The urgency underlying plaintiff’s signing the 2020 Agreement, without reading it, apart from promised lower service rates, is unclear. Plaintiff has not demonstrated how there is inequality in the bargaining power in this instance. Plaintiff is on equal footing with the defendants in understanding contract law, as well as the consequences of signing a contract. Moreover, the terms in the 2020 Agreement were similar to the majority of the material terms in the parties’ 2019 Agreement, which plaintiff does not claim was unconscionable. Kaufman v Relx Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 07192, First Dept 12-20-22

Practice Point: Here the plaintiff-attorney alleged the electronic legal research contract he signed with LexisNexis was unconscionable. The decision explains procedural and substantive unconscionability and held plaintiff, as an attorney, was on equal footing in negotiating the contract.

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT PLAINTIFFS WERE FACING SUSPENSION OF THEIR LICENSE TO PRACTICE LAW WAS NOT PROTECTED AS FAIR AND TRUE LEGAL REPORTING PURSUANT TO CIVIL RIGHTS LAW 74; THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR DEFAMATION PER SE, DISPARAGEMENT AND VIOLATIONS OF THE LANHAM ACT AND GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 349 (FIRST DEPT).

The Fist Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Civil Rights Law 74 did not protect the statements in defendant’s online ad claiming that plaintiffs were facing suspension of their license to practice law because the litigation referred to in the ad did not mention anything about plaintiffs’ law license. Civil Rights Law 74 protects only “fair and true” reports on judicial proceedings. The complaint stated causes of action for defamation per se, disparagement and violations of the Lanham Act and General Business Law 349:

Civil Rights Law § 74 did not apply to the challenged statements in defendant’s online ads that, in linking to a news article about pending litigation against plaintiffs by a former client in California, asserted that plaintiffs were facing suspension of their license to practice law. The news article did not mention that plaintiffs’ law license was at risk nor did the complaint against plaintiffs seek suspension of their law license. Accordingly, this statement was not shielded from liability as defendant failed to demonstrate that it was a “fair and true” report of a judicial proceeding … . …

Based on defendant’s allegedly false statement that plaintiffs were facing a suspension of their license, plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded a cause of action for defamation per se … . …

… [T]he factual allegations in the complaint were sufficient to sustain causes of action for disparagement, and violations under the federal Lanham Act and General Business Law § 349, at the pleading stage … . Luo & Assoc. v NYIS Law Firm, A.P.C., 2022 NY Slip Op 07154, First Dept 12-15-22

Practice Point: Civil Rights Law 74 protects only “fair and true” reports on judicial proceedings. Here the statements plaintiffs were facing the suspension of their license to practice law was not mentioned in the article referencing the judicial proceedings, so the statements were actionable as defamation per se, disparagement and violations of the Lanham Act and General Business Law 349.

 

, ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT WAIVE HIS CLIENT’S RIGHT TO HAVE HIM ATTEND THE LINEUP IDENTIFICATION BY SENDING HIS PARALEGAL, WHO WAS TURNED AWAY; DEFENSE COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN TOLD HIS PRESENCE WAS REQUIRED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined defense counsel did not waive his client’s right to have his attorney attend the lineup identification procedure by sending his paralegal. The paralegal was turned away:

Defendant was deprived of his right to have counsel present at a … postindictment lineup. It is undisputed that defendant had a right to counsel at this lineup, which was conducted at a time when he already had representation. Although defendant’s counsel was notified of the lineup and did not attend, a paralegal employed by counsel attempted to attend the lineup but was turned away by the police.

The attorney did not waive his client’s right to counsel at the lineup by failing to appear. The police should have briefly paused this nonexigent, postindictment lineup, conducted long after the crime … , in order to advise the attorney he needed to attend personally, or to have the paralegal so advise counsel. People v Bennett, 2022 NY Slip Op 07007, First Dept 12-8-22

Practice Point; Defense counsel sent his paralegal to attend his client’s lineup, but the police sent the paralegal away. The police should have informed counsel his presence was required before going ahead with the lineup. Counsel’s failure to attend did not waive his client’s right to have his attorney present.

 

,

THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT ALLEGING BILLING FOR SERVICES RENDERED BY ATTORNEYS NOT ADMITTED IN NEW YORK (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint stated a cause of action against defendant attorneys (BSF) alleging BSF billed for expenses associated with attorneys not admitted in New York:

The complaint stated a limited cause of action for breach of contract against BSF. The complaint sufficiently alleged that BSF overbilled or billed for unnecessary expenses associated with attorneys not admitted to practice law in, or based out of, New York, and the documentary submissions do not utterly refute those allegations … . Kaufman v Boies Schiller Flexner, LLP, 2022 NY Slip Op 06883, First Dept 12-6-22

Practice Point: Here plaintiff stated a cause of action against a law firm alleging the firm billed for unnecessary expenses associated with attorneys not admitted in New York.

 

,

THE EVIDENCE AT THE HEARING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION DID NOT SUPPORT THE ALLEGATION DEFENDANT’S FRIEND PAID DEFENDANT’S LEGAL FEES CREATING A CONFLICT OF INTEREST FOR DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction on the ground his attorney had a conflict of interest which deprived him of effective assistance of counsel. The case had gone to the Court of Appeals which held the defendant was entitled to a hearing on the motion:

The record supports the hearing court’s factual determination that defendant’s friend Salaam, whom his counsel represented on an unrelated criminal case, and who had initially been a suspect in the murder of which defendant was convicted, did not pay defendant’s legal fees. At the hearing, defendant did not meet his burden of proving the necessary facts by a preponderance of the evidence … . The hearing evidence showed that Salaam physically handed cash to defendant’s attorney for his retainer and for much of the balance of the fee, but that there was no proof as to the ultimate source of the cash. Counsel credibly testified that he viewed Salaam as his contact person and believed that the legal fees were being collectively raised by a group of defendant’s friends and relatives, including Salaam. The court’s finding was also supported by defendant’s recorded calls made while incarcerated, and the fact that Salaam always delivered cash to the attorney while accompanied by other friends of defendant. The evidence also shows that defendant chose and hired the attorney. People v Brown, 2022 NY Slip Op 06889, First Dept 12-6-22

Practice Point: Defendant alleged his friend paid his legal fees. Defendant’s friend had been represented in another criminal matter by defendant’s attorney and was a suspect in the murder of which defendant was convicted. The evidence at the hearing on defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction did not support the allegation defendant’s friend was the source of the funds paid to defendant’s attorney. Therefore defendant’s argument he was deprived of effective assistance because of his attorney’s conflict of interest was not supported by the evidence.

 

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