You are here: / Attorneys
, , ,

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED DEFENDANTS-ATTORNEYS DID NOT ADVISE IT OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMMERCIAL LEASE WHICH EFFECTIVELY ELIMINATED THE OPTION FOR PLAINTIFF TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY FOR $11.4 MILLION IF THE LANDLORD RECEIVES A BONA FIDE PURCHASE OFFER; THE LANDLORD IN FACT RECEIVED SUCH AN OFFER AND PLAINITFF EXERCISED ITS OPTION, BUT PAID $14.5 MILLION (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants-attorneys’ motion for summary judgment in this legal malpractice action should not have been granted. Plaintiff alleged defendants-attorneys did not advise it of an amendment to the commercial lease. The lease included an option to purchase the property for $11.4 million. The amendment extinguished the option to purchase for $11.4 million upon purchase of the property. The landlord received a bona fide purchase offer and plaintiff exercised its option, but paid $14.5 million:

Defendants’ email attaching a marked-up copy of the relevant lease section does not establish as a matter of law that defendants advised plaintiff as to the meaning of the amendment, and the parties dispute the oral advice that was provided by defendants. … [T]he fact that plaintiff’s agent read the amendment does not establish as a matter of law that defendants were not negligent … . Any evidence that plaintiff’s agent, a sophisticated businessman, knew or should have known that the amendment was substantive despite defendants’ advice that it was “housekeeping” does not disprove defendants’ negligence but is evidence that can be offered in mitigation of damages … .

… The fact that plaintiff sent the signed lease to the landlord without defendants’ knowledge does not as a matter of law refute causation. Alrose Steinway, LLC v Jaspan Schlesinger, LLP, 2022 NY Slip Op 03310, First Dept 5-19-22

Purchase Point: Here the attorneys’ alleged failure to advise the plaintiff of the significance of an amendment to a commercial lease raised a question of fact in this legal malpractice action. The amendment eliminated plaintiff’s option to purchase the property for $11.4 million if the landlord received a bona fide purchase offer. The landlord received such an offer and plaintiff exercised its option to purchase, but paid $14.5 million.

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD IN CRIMINAL CONTEMPT FOR ISSUING SUBPOENAS IN DEFIANCE OF AN ORDER STAYING THE PROCEEDINGS; DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CIVIL AND CRIMINIAL CONTEMPT EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s counsel should have been found in criminal contempt for issuing subpoenas in defiance of Supreme Court’s order staying any further action in the case:

In contrast to civil contempt, because the purpose of criminal contempt is to vindicate the authority of the court, no showing of prejudice is required … . Instead, “[a]llegations of willful disobedience of a proper judicial order strike at the core of the judicial process and implicate weighty public and institutional concerns regarding the integrity of and respect for judicial orders” … . …

Notwithstanding [the court’s order], the plaintiff’s counsel issued subpoenas on six separate occasions. When … the Supreme Court reiterated the terms of the stay, both via interim relief granted in the order to show cause and in a separate order, the plaintiff’s counsel did not desist but instead served four more subpoenas and moved to compel the production of subpoenaed documents. This conduct evidences a lack of “respect for judicial orders” and warranted holding the plaintiff’s counsel in criminal contempt … . Under the circumstances of this case, we deem the statutory maximum sanction of $1,000 per offense warranted and therefore impose a total sanction of $10,000. Madigan v Berkeley Capital, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 03237, Second Dept 5-18-22

Practice Point: Criminal contempt seeks to vindicate the authority of the court. Therefore no showing of prejudice is required. Here plaintiff’s counsel issued subpoenas in defiance of an order of the court. A $10,000 sanction for criminal contempt was imposed on the attorney by the appellate court.

 

,

A MONETARY PENALTY IMPOSED UPON PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY, AS OPPOSED TO DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT, WAS THE APPROPRIATE SANCTION FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO PROVIDE DISCOVERY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined sanctioning plaintiff’s attorney for failing to provide discovery, rather than dismissal of the complaint, was the best way to handle plaintiff’s inaction:

… [T]he plaintiff’s attorneys failed to comply with the defendants’ demands for a bill of particulars and discovery, did not object to those demands, and did not respond in any way to follow-up communications from the defendants’ attorneys until opposition to the motions was filed. Moreover, in response to the motions, the plaintiff’s attorneys failed to articulate any excuse for this series of failures … .

Notwithstanding this dereliction of responsibility, at the time the defendants moved … to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them, the plaintiff was not in violation of any court-ordered deadlines … . In fact, the defendants also both moved … to compel the plaintiff to comply with their respective discovery demands by a date certain. And … not long after the defendants’ motions were filed, the plaintiff began to produce the requested materials, albeit with some alleged deficiencies.

Under these circumstances, we are of the view that reinstatement of the complaint conditioned upon the payment of a penalty by the plaintiffs’ trial counsel personally to both defendants would be more appropriate than the outright denial of the plaintiff’s right to a day in court … . Cook v SI Care Ctr., 2022 NY Slip Op 03225, Second Dept 5-18-22

Practice Point: Here a monetary penalty imposed personally upon plaintiff’s attorney, as opposed to dismissal of the complaint, was deemed the appropriate penalty for plaintiff’s failure to provide discovery.

 

, ,

DESPITE THE STRENGTH OF THE EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED A DECISION TO GO TO TRIAL WOULD HAVE BEEN RATIONALE BECAUSE OF HIS FAMILY OBLIGATIONS; DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS; DEFENDANT ALLEGED HIS ATTORNEY MISADVISED HIM ON THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF A GUILTY PLEA (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant should have been afforded a hearing on his motion to vacate his conviction on ineffective assistance grounds. Defendant alleged he was misadvised of the deportation consequence of his guilty plea.

… [N]either the fact that the defendant had previously been convicted of an offense that may subject him to removal, nor the seemingly strong evidence against him with respect to the instant offense, nor the favorable plea bargain he received, necessarily requires a finding that the defendant was not prejudiced by his counsel’s alleged misadvice … . The defendant’s averments, including that he has resided in the United States since he was 10 years old, that he is married to his spouse with whom he has two minor children, that his spouse is unable to work due to a medical condition, that he is gainfully employed, and that he is the sole source of financial support to his family, sufficiently alleged that a decision to reject the plea offer would have been rational … . People v Samaroo, 2022 NY Slip Op 03128, Second Dept 5-11-22

Practice Point: Even if the evidence of defendant’s commission of the crime is strong, a defendant may demonstrate a decision to go to trial, rather than accept a plea offer, would have been rationale based upon family obligations. Here defendant, who is a legal resident and has lived in the US since he was ten, has two minor children, is employed, and his wife can’t work because of medical problems. Defendant brought a motion to vacate his conviction (by guilty plea) on the ground his attorney did not inform him of the deportation consequences of the plea. Defendant was entitled to a hearing on his motion.

 

, ,

A DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE IS NOT A FINAL DETERMINATION ON THE MERITS AND IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA; ATTORNEY’S FEES ARE APPROPRIATE DAMAGES IN AN ACTION FOR BREACH OF A FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s (Wormser’s) action for breach of the forum selection clause seeking attorney’s fees could go ahead. The defendant’s (L’Oreal’s) New Jersey action had been dismissed “without prejudice,” which was not a determination on the merits, and therefore Wormser’s action was not precluded by the res judicata doctrine:

Plaintiff (Wormser) asserts a claim for breach of the forum selection clause contained in the parties’ agreement, which requires disputes to be brought before the courts of New York City, and for attorneys’ fees incurred in the actions that defendant (L’Oréal) brought against it in New Jersey. After the New Jersey court had dismissed its complaint “with prejudice within the jurisdiction of New Jersey,” L’OrÉal commenced an action against Wormser in Supreme Court, New York County. Subsequently, a New Jersey appellate court amended the New Jersey trial court’s orders to make the dismissal “without prejudice” … , and Wormser brought this action.

Wormser’s claim is not barred by the doctrine of res judicata, because the dismissal was without prejudice by the New Jersey appellate court and therefore was not a final determination on the merits ,,, ,

Wormser’s claim for attorneys’ fees may proceed, as “damages may be obtained for breach of a forum selection clause, and an award of such damages does not contravene the American rule that deems attorneys’ fees a mere incident of litigation” … . Wormser Corp. v L’Oréal USA, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 03093, First Dept 5-10-22

Practice Point: A dismissal without prejudice is not a final determination on the merits and is not therefore subject to res judicata.

Practice Point: Attorney’s fees are properly demanded as damages in an action for breach of a forum selection clause.

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HE WAS INDUCED TO SIGN RELEASES BY FRAUD, DURESS AND/OR MUTUAL MISTAKE; PLAINTIFF WAS APPROACHED BY HIS EMPLOYER’S LAWYER AND ALLEGEDLY BELIEVED HE WOULD LOSE HIS JOB IF HE DIDN’T SIGN (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff raised a question of fact about whether the releases were signed by plaintiff because of fraud, duress and/or mutual mistake. The facts are not described. Apparently plaintiff was injured at work and he alleged that he believed he would lose his job if he didn’t sign the releases:

“A release, even though properly executed, may nonetheless be void. Where fraud or duress in the procurement of a release is alleged, a motion to dismiss should be denied” … . Specifically, plaintiff alleged that Selina Maddock, a lawyer, was sent by their employer Navillus to secure plaintiff’s signature on the release, before he retained counsel, and made both the promise that he would have a job if he signed the releases, and the implicit threat that he would not have a job in the future if he failed to sign. He further alleged that Maddock advised plaintiff that he did not need to consult counsel and misrepresented to plaintiff that he was only releasing claims against his employer, Navillus. Consistent with this, plaintiff testified that he did not understand that he was releasing anyone besides his employer. Furthermore, “a mistaken belief as to the nonexistence of presently existing injury is a prerequisite to avoidance of a release”; here, while defendants argue that plaintiff is merely mistaken as to the sequelae of a known injury, plaintiff raises a factual issue as to whether the additional injuries he claims to suffer from were a sequelae of his right knee injury. Forcing a Hobbesian choice on injured workers to accept a small settlement or else lose their job before they can ascertain the nature and scope of their injury is contrary to the strong public policy of New York state to protect injured workers, as reflected in the Labor Law…. . Dolcimascolo v 701 7th Prop. Owner, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 02944, First Dept 5-3-22

Practice Point: Plaintiff was apparently injured at work. A lawyer for his employer approached him about signing releases. Plaintiff signed, allegedly because he believed he would lose his job if he didn’t. Therefore there was a question of fact about whether fraud, duress or mutual mistake invalidated the releases.

 

, ,

THE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED THAT THE MAJORITY ERRONEOUSLY AFFIRMED THE DENIAL OF THE MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION ON A GROUND NOT RELIED UPON BY THE MOTION COURT (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department affirmed the summary denial of defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction on ineffective assistance grounds. Defendant argued his counsel was ineffective because counsel did not object to defendant’s being forced to wear a stun belt. The two-justice dissent noted that the ground on which the majority based its decision, i.e., that defense counsel’s failure to object did not rise to ineffective assistance, was not the ground relied on by the motion court. Therefore, the dissent argued, the appellate court could not affirm on that ground:

From the dissent:

The court summarily denied the motion, concluding in relevant part that defendant is not entitled to relief on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim because we determined on direct appeal that he was not deprived of effective assistance of counsel … . The majority affirms that ruling on another ground, one not argued by the People on appeal—namely, that defense counsel’s failure to object to the stun belt, standing alone, was not such an egregious or prejudicial error as to compromise defendant’s right to a fair trial. Because the court did not deny defendant’s motion on the ground relied upon by the majority, we are precluded from affirming on that ground (see People v Concepcion, 17 NY3d 192, 197-198 [2011]; People v LaFontaine, 92 NY2d 470, 473-474 [1998], rearg denied 93 NY2d 849 [1999]). People v Bradford, 2022 NY Slip Op 02897, Fourth Dept 4-29-22

Practice Point: Although the argument was made in the dissent in this case, it is worth noting that there is authority for the position that an appellate court cannot affirm on a ground not relied upon by the lower court.

 

,

PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES IN THIS FOIL PROCEEDING; THE RESPONDENTS DID NOT PROVIDE THE BULK OF THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS UNTIL AFTER THE ARTICLE 78 WAS BROUGHT; RESPONDENTS DID NOT PRESENT AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO INITIALLY DISCLOSE THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner was entitled to attorney’s fees as the prevailing party in this FOIL proceeding. It was only after petitioner brought an Article 78 petition that the respondents provided the bulk of the requested documents:

… [T]he respondents did not timely respond to the petitioner’s FOIL request … . The first response, which consisted of four pages of materials, failed to address three of the four enumerated categories of material the petitioner sought. It was not until after the commencement of this proceeding that the respondents provided a significant number of additional documents responsive to the FOIL request. Under the circumstances of this case, the petitioner was the “substantially prevailing” party … . …

… [T]he respondents did not have a reasonable basis for initially denying the petitioner access to the responsive materials. Although a limited amount of material was reasonably withheld based on attorney-client privilege, the “petitioner’s legal action ultimately succeeded in obtaining substantial unredacted post-commencement disclosure responsive to h[is] FOIL request” … . Matter of McNerney v Carmel Cent. Sch. Dist., 2022 NY Slip Op 02799, Second Dept 4-27-22

Practice Point: Respondents didn’t disclose the bulk of the documents described in the FOIL request until the Article 78 proceeding was started and did not have an adequate excuse for the initial incomplete response. Petitioner was entitled to attorney’s fees as the prevailing party.

 

, , ,

MOTHER WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HER CLAIM SHE ADMITTED TO PERMANENT NEGLECT BECAUSE HER COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE; MOTHER ALLEGED COUNSEL DID NOT INFORM HER OF THE RELEVANT BURDENS OF PROOF AT TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined mother was entitled to a hearing on whether her counsel was ineffective in failing to inform her of the applicable burdens of proof and in allowing her to admit to permanent neglect:

 “‘A respondent in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b has the right to the assistance of counsel (see Family Ct Act § 262[a][iv]), which encompasses the right to the effective assistance of counsel'” … . “[T]he statutory right to counsel under Family Court Act § 262 affords protections equivalent to the constitutional standard of effective assistance of counsel afforded to defendants in criminal proceedings” … . Effective assistance is predicated on the standard of “meaningful representation” … .

… [M]other submitted an affidavit alleging that, prior to entering her admission to permanent neglect, counsel failed to inform her of the burden and standard of proof at trial and that she made the admission “because [she] was advised that it was necessary in order to have [her] children returned.” She further alleged that she “would not have made the statements that [she] made to the court if [she] had been fully advised of [her] rights.” The Family Court did not ameliorate these purported deficiencies in its colloquy with the mother, and also omitted any reference to the possible consequences of the finding, including termination of her parental rights … . Matter of Skylar P. J., 2022 NY Slip Op 02793, Second Dept 4-27-22

Practice Point: A party in a neglect proceeding has a right to effective assistance of counsel. Here mother was entitled to a hearing on her claim she would not have admitted to permanent neglect had she been informed of the relevant burdens of proof at trial.

 

, , ,

THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED (1) THE RECORD SUPPORTED THE FINDING THAT DEFENDANT DID NOT MAKE AN UNEQUIVOCAL REQUEST FOR COUNSEL, AND (2) WHETHER A REQUEST FOR COUNSEL IS UNEQUIVOCAL IS A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT WHICH IS NOT REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, over a two-judge extensive dissenting opinion, determined (1) the record supported the finding that the defendant’s request for counsel was not unequivocal and (2) whether the request was unequivocal presents a mixed question of law and fact which is not reviewable by the Court of Appeals:

Once a defendant in custody unequivocally requests the assistance of counsel, the right to counsel may not be waived outside the presence of counsel … . But “[a] suggestion that counsel might be desired; a notification that counsel exists; or a query as to whether counsel ought to be obtained will not suffice” to unequivocally invoke the indelible right to counsel … . Furthermore, “[w]hether a particular request is or is not unequivocal is a mixed question of law and fact that must be determined with reference to the circumstances surrounding the request including the defendant’s demeanor, manner of expression and the particular words found to have been used by the defendant” … .

Here, there is support in the record for the lower courts’ determination that defendant—whose inquiries and demeanor suggested a conditional interest in speaking with an attorney only if it would not otherwise delay his clearly-expressed wish to speak to the police—did not unequivocally invoke his right to counsel while in custody. That mixed question of law and fact is therefore beyond further review by this Court … .

From the dissent:

Here, Mr. Dawson [defendant] unequivocally invoked his right to counsel — the record supports no other conclusion. As is clear from the quoted portion of the colloquy with the detective, he twice said he wanted to call his lawyer, and the detective twice expressly stated that he understood Mr. Dawson had asked to call counsel and therefore the detective could no longer speak to Mr. Dawson. Additionally, the detective then told Mr. Dawson to wait while the detective retrieved Mr. Dawson’s phone so he could call counsel. People v Dawson, 2022 NY Slip Op 02772, CtApp 4-26-22

​Practice Point: Whether a defendant’s request for counsel in “unequivocal,” thereby requiring police interrogation to cease, is a mixed question of law and fact. As long as there is support in the record for the lower court’s finding the request was not unequivocal, the issue cannot be reviewed by the Court of Appeals.

 

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