You are here: / Attorneys
,

EVEN THOUGH FATHER PAID WHAT HE OWED WHEN MOTHER FILED A PETITION FOR UNPAID CHILD SUPPORT, MOTHER WAS ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined Family Court improvidently exercised its discretion when it denied mother’s request for attorney’s fees. Father was in arrears but paid what was owed after mother filed a petition for the unpaid child support. Mother was entitled to attorney’s fees despite the fact that father withheld payment because of a dispute about cell phone bills and college expenses:

Pursuant to Family Court Act § 438(a), a court, in its discretion, may award reasonable attorneys’ fees in an enforcement proceeding. The denial of an award of attorneys’ fees to the mother in this case was an improvident exercise of discretion. The father paid the sum demanded for arrears in satisfying his child support obligations, but only after the mother was forced to expend attorneys’ fees to commence an enforcement proceeding. The fact that the father was engaged in a dispute over whether he should be credited for payments for cell phone expenses and college expenses paid before the entry of the parties’ judgment of divorce did not authorize him to engage in self-help by withholding child support payments that he ultimately did not dispute were due and owing. Matter of Mensch v Mensch, 2019 NY Slip Op 00126, Second Dept 1-9-19

 

,

LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BROUGHT BY A NEW JERSEY RESIDENT IS UNTIMELY PURSUANT TO NEW YORK’S BORROWING STATUTE, NEW YORK’S SHORTER STATUTE O

The First Department determined Supreme Court properly applied New York’s borrowing statute (CPLR 202) and chose the shorter of the statutes of limitations for a legal malpractice action. New York’s statute is three years and New Jersey’s is six years. Plaintiff was a New Jersey resident:

The court correctly found the complaint time-barred under CPLR 202, New York’s “borrowing statute,” which requires a claim to be timely under both the New York limitations period and that of the jurisdiction where the claim is alleged to have arisen (Kat House Prods., LLC v Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, LLP, 71 AD3d 580[1st Dept 2010]).

Plaintiff, a New Jersey resident, alleged legal malpractice in connection with defendants’ representation of him for numerous real estate transactions, a cause of action which has a three year statute of limitations in New York (CPLR 214 [6]), and a six year limitations period in New Jersey (NJ Stat Ann § 2A:14-1). The latest that the alleged malpractice could have occurred was February 7, 2013, the date set for closing on the last of the real estate matters. Because plaintiff commenced the action on October 28, 2016, more than three years later, it was correctly dismissed as untimely. Soloway v Kane Kessler, PC, 2019 NY Slip Op 00026 [168 AD3d 407], First Dept 1-3-19

 

, , , , ,

BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, FRAUD AND JUDICIARY LAW 487 ALLEGATIONS STEMMING FROM DEFENDANT LAW FIRM’S REPRESENTATION OF PLAINTIFF IN DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS DUPLICATED THE LEGAL MALPRACTICE ALLEGATIONS, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Singh, determined that plaintiff’s legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud and Judiciary Law 487 causes of action against the law firm which represented her in divorce proceedings should have been dismissed. The opinion is fact-specific. The legal issues mentioned include: the breach of fiduciary duty allegations were identical to the legal malpractice allegations and therefore required the “but for” element of legal malpractice (which was missing), and the fraud and Judiciary Law 487 claims were identical and duplicated the legal malpractice allegations, requiring dismissal. Knox v Aronson, Mayefsky & Sloan, LLP,  2018 NY Slip Op 09030, First Dept 12-27-18

 

LAW FIRM ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES FROM ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS WHO DID NOT SIGN THE RETAINER AGREEMENT, THE ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS BENEFITED FROM THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT REACHED BY THE LAW FIRM AND THE ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS HAD SIGNED THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the law firm, SGA, was entitled to attorney’s fees and expenses from “additional defendants” who did not sign the retainer agreement but who benefited from the law firm’s work:

In a prior appeal in index no. 153449/14, this Court recognized that an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses against additional defendants pursuant to the common fund doctrine was appropriate, because, although they did not sign the retainer agreement with plaintiffs’ counsel (SGA), additional defendants “signed a settlement agreement obtained by SGA entitling [them] to receive a pro-rata payout from the proceeds of the sale of a building in which [they] had invested” … . Additional defendants received a “substantial benefit” as a result of SGA’s efforts, i.e., funds from the liquidation of an asset (the subject property) as to which defendants had successfully excluded them for 30 years … . …

The fact that SGA has already been partially compensated by plaintiffs does not preclude a fee award, as that would be inconsistent with the purpose of the common fund doctrine to prevent unjust enrichment by “allow[ing] the others to obtain full benefit from the plaintiff’s efforts without contributing equally to the litigation expenses” … . Ital Assoc. v Axon, 2018 NY Slip Op 09013, First Dept 12-27-18

 

, ,

LEGAL SENTENCE FOR A PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER DRASTICALLY REDUCED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE PURSUANT TO A MOTION FOR A WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS BASED UPON APPELLATE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO CONTEND THE SENTENCING COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department drastically reduced defendant’s sentence pursuant to a motion for a writ of coram nobis based on appellate counsel’s failure to to contend that the sentencing court abused its discretion in finding defendant to be a persistent felony contender. The Fourth Department found that the sentencing court  was not erroneous as a matter of law because it did not act arbitrarily or irrationally. However, the Fourth Department noted that it has the authority to vacate a harsh or severe persistent felony offender finding pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) 470.20 (6) and did so. Defendant’s 15 to life sentence was reduced to an aggregate sentence of 5 1/2 to 11:

Although defendant has a lengthy criminal history, almost all of his offenses stem from him stealing from stores to get money to support his long-standing drug habit. It does not appear from the presentence report that defendant has ever inflicted violence on anyone, and he certainly did not physically harm anyone in this case.

We note that the People never requested that defendant be adjudicated a persistent felony offender; instead, the court sua sponte ordered the persistent felony offender hearing. As noted, the People, in a pretrial plea bargain, offered defendant a sentence of concurrent indeterminate terms of incarceration of 2 to 4 years. Moreover, the judge who initially handled this case transferred it to Drug Treatment Court, which rejected defendant due to his extended period of sobriety—he had been in jail for more than a year at the time awaiting trial. Defendant thus went from having his case transferred to Drug Treatment Court, where successful completion may have resulted in reduction of the felony charges to misdemeanors, to being sentenced to 20 years to life, on the same charges [reduced to 15 to life on a prior appeal]. Such a disparity between the plea offer and the ultimate sentence militates in favor of a sentence reduction, especially for a nonviolent offender such as defendant. People v Ellison, 2018 NY Slip Op 08833, Fourth Dept 12-21-18

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE PROSECUTOR WAS GUILTY OF SERIOUS MISCONDUCT, DEFENDANT DID NOT OBJECT TO THE PROSECUTOR’S REMARKS AND REVERSAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WAS NOT WARRANTED, TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the prosecutor had exceeded the bounds of the propriety but the prosecutorial misconduct, which was not preserved for appeal by objection, did not warrant reversal. Two dissenting justices argued the misconduct warranted reversal:

We agree with defendant, however, that the prosecutor exceeded the bounds of propriety by cross-examining a defense witness regarding an uncharged crime that defendant allegedly committed and by placing his own credibility in issue while doing so. “A prosecutor may not refer to matters not in evidence or call upon the jury to draw conclusions that cannot fairly be inferred from the evidence” … and, in this case, the prosecutor strayed outside ” the four corners of the evidence’ ” when he implied that defendant committed different crimes … . Nevertheless, reversal is unwarranted where a prosecutor’s error has not substantially prejudiced a defendant’s trial … and, although the dissent is correct that we have previously admonished this prosecutor, the instant trial occurred before that admonition. Therefore, although we strongly condemn the prosecutor’s conduct during cross-examination, we conclude that it does not warrant reversal here … .

From the Dissent: We agree with defendant that the prosecutor caused him substantial prejudice during the cross-examination of a defense witness. ” It is fundamental that evidence concerning a defendant’s uncharged crimes or prior misconduct is not admissible if it cannot logically be connected to some specific material issue in the case, and tends only to demonstrate that the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime charged’ ” … . …

We further agree with defendant that remarks in the prosecutor’s summation were inflammatory and prejudicial. The prosecutor referred to defendant’s witnesses as “liars,” compounding the prejudicial effect of his improper cross-examination … . More egregiously, the prosecutor referred to defendant as a “monster” four times. People v Fick, 2018 NY Slip Op 08788, Fourth Dept 12-21-18

 

, ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO OBTAIN EXPERT OPINION EVIDENCE CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, THE CASE TURNED ON WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS INTOXICATED, THE INTOXILYZER RESULTS WERE INCONSISTENT, CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment of conviction on ineffective assistance grounds should have been granted:

This case turned on whether defendant was intoxicated at the time of the vehicular accident at issue, and there was a serious issue about the accuracy of the final Intoxilyzer reading, which conflicted with an earlier reading showing no intoxication. Defense counsel failed to take steps to consult with and produce an appropriate expert on breath and blood alcohol analysis to rebut the People’s proof … .

At the 440.10 hearing, trial counsel conceded that his only reason for not calling an expert was the inability of his client, who was also unable to pay counsel’s fee, to pay for an expert. He also conceded that he took no steps to obtain a court-appointed expert, and was unaware that this remedy might be available. This constituted constitutionally deficient performance … . As for the prejudice prong of an ineffective assistance claim, we find that there is a reasonable probability that calling an expert would have affected the outcome of the trial, and that the absence of expert testimony rendered the proceeding unfair under the facts of the case. People v Carter, 2018 NY Slip Op 08745, First Dept 12-20-18

 

, , ,

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE FILED BY DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY WAIVED ANY SUBSEQUENT OBJECTION TO PERSONAL JURISDICTION IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, ISSUE HEARD ON APPEAL ALTHOUGH NOT RAISED BELOW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court on a ground not raised below, determined that defendant’s attorney’s notice of appearance waived any objection to personal jurisdiction over defendant:

“The filing of a notice of appearance in an action by a party’s counsel serves as a waiver of any objection to personal jurisdiction in the absence of either the service of an answer which raises a jurisdictional objection, or a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) for lack of personal jurisdiction” … . Here, in November 2014, the defendant’s attorney appeared in the action on her behalf by filing a notice of appearance dated October 31, 2014, and did not move to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction at that time, or assert lack of personal jurisdiction in a responsive pleading… . The defendant did not move to dismiss the complaint until September 2015, 10 months after filing a notice of appearance. Under those circumstances, the defendant waived any claim that the Supreme Court lacked personal jurisdiction over her in this action … .

Although the plaintiff raises this issue for the first time on appeal, it involves a question of law that appears on the face of the record, and could not have been avoided if brought to the attention of the Supreme Court … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Vu, 2018 NY Slip Op 08629, Second Dept 12-19-18

 

,

FATHER WAS NOT ADEQUATELY INFORMED OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF PROCEEDING WITHOUT AN ATTORNEY, NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court in this neglect proceeding, determined father was not adequately informed of his right to an attorney:

… [A]lthough the Family Court repeatedly asked the father whether he wanted to represent himself, told him that he would have to follow the same legal rules as the other parties, and cautioned him generally against self representation, the court did so without detailing the dangers and disadvantages of proceeding pro se … . More specifically, the court failed to adequately warn the father of the risks inherent in proceeding without an attorney; failed to adequately apprise the father of the critical importance of having an attorney in a child neglect proceeding, particularly where there is a related criminal matter pending; failed to adequately explore the defendant’s age, education, occupation, previous exposure to legal procedures and other factors bearing on a competent, intelligent, voluntary waiver; and failed to ensure that the father acknowledged his understanding of the perils of self-representation. Because the court failed to conduct a sufficiently searching inquiry of the father to be reasonably certain that he understood the dangers and disadvantages of giving up the fundamental right to counsel, and thus failed to ensure that the father’s waiver of his right to counsel was made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, we must reverse the order and remit the matter to the Family Court, Suffolk County, for a new hearing and a new determination, after a proper inquiry into the father’s understanding of the consequences of self-representation … . Matter of Alivia F. (John F.), 2018 NY Slip Op 08649, Second Dept 12-19-18

RIGHT TO COUNSEL

,

LAW OFFICE FAILURE JUSTIFIED CONSIDERING EVIDENCE WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED IN SUPPORT OF THE ORIGINAL MOTION, MOTION TO RENEW PROPERLY GRANTED, HOWEVER DELAYS IN DISCOVERY WARRANTED SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined law office failure was an adequate excuse for failing to present evidence in support of plaintiff’s original motion which was submitted in support of a motion to renew. However, in light of plaintiff’s delays in discovery, sanctions were appropriate:

… Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in considering the new evidence submitted by the plaintiff in support of those branches of her motion which were for leave to renew her prior motion and her opposition to the appellants’ cross motion. Although the new facts may have been known to the plaintiff at the time of her prior motion, the plaintiff explained that the new evidence was not submitted in connection with her prior motion and opposition due to a misunderstanding by counsel that ultimately led to law office failure. * * *

“The determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse lies within the Supreme Court’s discretion” … . “Whether there is a reasonable excuse for a default is a discretionary, sui generis determination to be made by the court based on all relevant factors, including the extent of the delay, whether there has been prejudice to the opposing party, whether there has been willfulness, and the strong public policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits” … . “[T]he court has discretion to accept law office failure as a reasonable excuse (see CPLR 2005) where that claim is supported by a detailed and credible explanation of the default at issue” … . …

… [A]though the plaintiff set forth a reasonable explanation for her failure to fully comply with the conditional order of dismissal, the fact remains that she failed to fully comply with that order, and her conduct during discovery cannot be countenanced … . Consequently, … a monetary sanction in the total sum of $5,000 is warranted to compensate the appellants for the time expended and costs incurred in connection with the plaintiff’s failure to fully and timely comply with the conditional order of dismissal … . Burro v Kang, 2018 NY Slip Op 08457, Second Dept 12-12-18

 

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