You are here: / Legal Malpractice
, , , , ,

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

 

, , ,

COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE, MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint stated a cause of action for legal malpractice and should not have been dismissed. The court explained that whether the action would survive a subsequent summary judgment motion is not to be considered. The complaint alleged plaintiff was injured by a pizza delivery driver and the attorneys failed to sue the employer (Dominos):

“On a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the court must accept the facts alleged in the complaint as true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory” … . “Where a court considers evidentiary material in determining a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), but does not convert the motion into one for summary judgment, the criterion becomes whether the plaintiff has a cause of action, not whether the plaintiff has stated one, and unless the movant shows that a material fact as claimed by the plaintiff is not a fact at all and no significant dispute exists regarding the alleged fact, the complaint shall not be dismissed” … . “Whether the complaint will later survive a motion for summary judgment, or whether the plaintiff will ultimately be able to prove its claims, of course, plays no part in the determination of a prediscovery CPLR 3211 motion to dismiss” … . …

Here, accepting the facts alleged in the complaint as true, and according the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, the plaintiff stated a cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice … . The evidentiary submissions did not establish that a material fact alleged in the complaint is not a fact at all and that no significant dispute exists regarding it … . Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the plaintiff was entitled to commence this legal malpractice action even though the underlying personal injury action was still pending, as the legal malpractice action accrued, at the latest, in November 2014 … . Lopez v Lozner & Mastropietro, P.C. , 2018 NY Slip Op 08017, Second Dept 11-21-18

ATTORNEYS (LEGAL MALPRACTICE, COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE, MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/LEGAL MALPRACTICE (COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE, MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (LEGAL MALPRACTICE, COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE, MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTIONS TO DISMISS,  COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE, MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/DISMISS COMPLAINT, MOTION TO (LEGAL MALPRACTICE, COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE, MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3211 (LEGAL MALPRACTICE, COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE, MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether the continuous representation doctrine tolled the statute of limitations. Defendant attorney (Weiss) were hired by plaintiff to bring a personal injury action. The legal malpractice action was filed more than three years after the statute had run on the personal injury case:

The complaint alleged that after the plaintiff executed the retainer agreement, Weis informed the plaintiff that the defendants were going to commence a personal injury and products liability action against the owner of the table saw, the manufacturer of the table saw, and ” everyone that touched the table saw'” until it was sold to the homeowner; the personal injury claim was ” worth millions of dollars'”; and it “would take up to seven (7) years to resolve” the personal injury claim. The complaint further alleged that from approximately September 2008 to late 2008, the plaintiff contacted Weis approximately every two weeks to inquire about the status of the personal injury claim. Weis allegedly advised the plaintiff to ” put the case on the back burner as it was going to take a long time to resolve,'” and that Weis ” had the plaintiff’s contact information,'” and ” if he needed the plaintiff, he would contact him.'” The complaint also alleged that between approximately late 2008 and July 2014, the plaintiff called the defendants’ law office every six to eight months to check on the status of the personal injury claim and spoke to a secretary each time. The complaint alleged that on July 29, 2014, the plaintiff went to the defendants’ office and asked Weis “when his court date was” because “it was getting close” to the seven-year “anniversary of the accident.” Weis allegedly told the plaintiff that he had ” no case,'” and that Weis thought the plaintiff had ” disappeared.'” …

… [T]the plaintiff raised a question of fact as to whether the continuous representation doctrine tolled the running of the statute of limitations until July 29, 2014, when Weis allegedly informed the plaintiff that he did not have a case. Upon entering into the retainer agreement, the plaintiff and the defendants reasonably intended that their professional relationship of trust and confidence, focused upon the personal injury claim, would continue. The complaint adequately alleged that the plaintiff was “left with the reasonable impression” that the defendants were, “in fact, actively addressing [his] legal needs” until that date. The allegations in the complaint failed to reflect, as a matter of law, that the plaintiff knew or should have known that the defendants had withdrawn from representation on the personal injury claim more than three years before the legal malpractice action was commenced … . Schrull v Weis, 2018 NY Slip Op 07769, Second Dept 11-14-18

LEGAL MALPRACTICE (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (LEGAL MALPRACTICE, CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE (LEGAL MALPRACTICE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (LEGAL MALPRACTICE, CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (LEGAL MALPRACTICE, CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE, BUT DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR A VIOLATION OF JUDICIARY LAW 487 ABSENT AN ALLEGATION OF AN INTENTIONAL DECEPTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the legal malpractice cause of action properly survived a motion to dismiss, but the Judiciary Law 487 cause of action should have been dismissed because there was no allegation of intentional as opposed to negligent conduct:

In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the attorney failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession’ and that the attorney’s breach of this duty proximately caused plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages” … . “To establish causation, a plaintiff must show that he or she would have prevailed in the underlying action or would not have incurred any damages, but for the lawyer’s negligence” …

Here, contrary to the defendant’s contention, the complaint adequately alleged the required element of causation. Specifically, the complaint, construed liberally… , alleged that the defendant proximately caused the plaintiff damages by, among other things, negligently failing … to assert a specific performance cause of action, on which the plaintiff would have prevailed. …

However, the Supreme Court should have directed dismissal of the second and third causes of action, alleging violations of Judiciary Law § 487. Under Judiciary Law § 487, an attorney who “[i]s guilty of any deceit or collusion, or consents to any deceit or collusion, with intent to deceive the court or any party” is liable to the injured party for treble damages. “[V]iolation of Judiciary Law § 487 requires an intent to deceive, whereas a legal malpractice claim is based on negligent conduct”… .

… [Plaintiff’s] allegations do not set forth any facts from which an intent to deceive him could be inferred … . Aristakesian v Ballon Stoll Bader & Nadler, P.C., 2018 NY Slip Op 07084, Second Dept 10-24-18

NEGLIGENCE (LEGAL MALPRACTICE, COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE, BUT DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR A VIOLATION OF JUDICIARY LAW 487 ABSENT AN ALLEGATION OF AN INTENTIONAL DECEPTION (SECOND DEPT))/LEGAL MALPRACTICE (COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE, BUT DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR A VIOLATION OF JUDICIARY LAW 487 ABSENT AN ALLEGATION OF AN INTENTIONAL DECEPTION (SECOND DEPT))/JUDICIARY LAW (ATTORNEYS, COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE, BUT DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR A VIOLATION OF JUDICIARY LAW 487 ABSENT AN ALLEGATION OF AN INTENTIONAL DECEPTION (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (MALPRACTICE, JUDICIARY LAW, COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE, BUT DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR A VIOLATION OF JUDICIARY LAW 487 ABSENT AN ALLEGATION OF AN INTENTIONAL DECEPTION (SECOND DEPT))

, , , ,

PLAINTIFF, A LEGAL RESIDENT OF THE US, PLED GUILTY TO AN ELECTION LAW VIOLATION, PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE STEMMING FROM ALLEGED ADVICE THAT TRAVELING ABROAD WOULD NOT HAVE DETRIMENTAL IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES, PLAINTIFF WAS DETAINED FOR FOUR MONTHS WHEN HE ATTEMPTED TO RETURN FROM TRAVEL ABROAD (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff's legal malpractice action based upon advice to plead guilty to an election law violation was not viable because he pled guilty without any assertion of innocence. However, the legal malpractice action based upon the advice that his travel abroad would not affect his immigration status was viable. Plaintiff, a legal resident, was detained for four months when he attempted to return to the US from abroad:

We affirm dismissal of part of the malpractice claim … . Plaintiff's claim that he pleaded guilty to criminal charges in reliance on defendants' negligent legal advice concerning the immigration consequences of the plea is barred by his guilty plea and lack of any claim of innocence (Carmel v Lunney, 70 NY2d 169, 173 [1987]… ).

However, the policy underlying the rule established in Carmel v Lunney, supra, does not require dismissal of the entirety of plaintiff's legal malpractice claim, because the remainder of his claim that defendants failed to advise him of the potential immigration consequences of traveling outside the United States as a result of entering a guilty plea does not dispute the validity of his conviction … . Further, plaintiff's allegations that he relied on defendants' faulty legal advice concerning the immigration consequences of his guilty plea in deciding to travel abroad after he pled guilty, resulting in his being detained and subjected to removal proceedings, state a valid cause of action for legal malpractice. Sehgal v DiRaimondo, 2018 NY Slip Op 06619, First Dept 10-4-18

LEGAL MALPRACTICE (PLAINTIFF, A LEGAL RESIDENT OF THE US, PLED GUILTY TO AN ELECTION LAW VIOLATION, PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE STEMMING FROM ALLEGED ADVICE THAT TRAVELING ABROAD WOULD NOT HAVE DETRIMENTAL IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES, PLAINTIFF WAS DETAINED FOR FOUR MONTHS WHEN HE ATTEMPTED TO RETURN FROM TRAVEL ABROAD (FIRST DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (LEGAL MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFF, A LEGAL RESIDENT OF THE US, PLED GUILTY TO AN ELECTION LAW VIOLATION, PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE STEMMING FROM ALLEGED ADVICE THAT TRAVELING ABROAD WOULD NOT HAVE DETRIMENTAL IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES, PLAINTIFF WAS DETAINED FOR FOUR MONTHS WHEN HE ATTEMPTED TO RETURN FROM TRAVEL ABROAD (FIRST DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFF, A LEGAL RESIDENT OF THE US, PLED GUILTY TO AN ELECTION LAW VIOLATION, PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE STEMMING FROM ALLEGED ADVICE THAT TRAVELING ABROAD WOULD NOT HAVE DETRIMENTAL IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES, PLAINTIFF WAS DETAINED FOR FOUR MONTHS WHEN HE ATTEMPTED TO RETURN FROM TRAVEL ABROAD (FIRST DEPT))/IMMIGRATION LAW (ATTORNEYS, LEGAL MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFF, A LEGAL RESIDENT OF THE US, PLED GUILTY TO AN ELECTION LAW VIOLATION, PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE STEMMING FROM ALLEGED ADVICE THAT TRAVELING ABROAD WOULD NOT HAVE DETRIMENTAL IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES, PLAINTIFF WAS DETAINED FOR FOUR MONTHS WHEN HE ATTEMPTED TO RETURN FROM TRAVEL ABROAD (FIRST DEPT))/ELECTION LAW (IMMIGRATION LAW, LEGAL MALPRACTICE, (PLAINTIFF, A LEGAL RESIDENT OF THE US, PLED GUILTY TO AN ELECTION LAW VIOLATION, PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE STEMMING FROM ALLEGED ADVICE THAT TRAVELING ABROAD WOULD NOT HAVE DETRIMENTAL IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES, PLAINTIFF WAS DETAINED FOR FOUR MONTHS WHEN HE ATTEMPTED TO RETURN FROM TRAVEL ABROAD (FIRST DEPT))

, , ,

EMAILS AND LETTERS WERE NOT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, MOTION TO DISMISS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION PURSUANT TO CPLR 3211 (a)(1) SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant attorneys were not entitled to dismissal of the legal malpractice action based on documentary evidence:

A motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the action is barred by documentary evidence “may be appropriately granted only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes plaintiff's factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law” … . “In order for evidence to qualify as documentary,' it must be unambiguous, authentic, and undeniable” … . “[J]udicial records, as well as documents reflecting out-of-court transactions such as mortgages, deeds, contracts, and any other papers, the contents of which are essentially undeniable, would qualify as documentary evidence in the proper case” … . “Conversely, letters, emails, and affidavits fail to meet the requirements for documentary evidence” … .

Here, the emails and letters submitted in support of the defendant's motion were not documentary evidence within the meaning of CPLR 3211(a)(1). To the extent that the other evidence submitted was documentary, that evidence did not conclusively establish the absence of an attorney-client relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendant with respect to the liens and their extensions. First Choice Plumbing Corp. v Miller Law Offs., PLLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 05825, Second Dept 8-22-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (EMAILS AND LETTERS WERE NOT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, MOTION TO DISMISS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION PURSUANT TO CPLR 3211 (a)(1) SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3211 (EMAILS AND LETTERS WERE NOT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, MOTION TO DISMISS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION PURSUANT TO CPLR 3211 (a)(1) SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, EMAILS AND LETTERS WERE NOT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, MOTION TO DISMISS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION PURSUANT TO CPLR 3211 (a)(1) SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/LEGAL MALPRACTICE  (EMAILS AND LETTERS WERE NOT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, MOTION TO DISMISS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION PURSUANT TO CPLR 3211 (a)(1) SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (LEGAL MALPRACTICE, CIVIL PROCEDURE, EMAILS AND LETTERS WERE NOT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, MOTION TO DISMISS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION PURSUANT TO CPLR 3211 (a)(1) SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

PLAINTIFF COULD NOT HAVE PREVAILED IN THE UNDERLYING SLIP AND FALL CASE BECAUSE OF THE STORM IN PROGRESS RULE, LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BASED UPON A FAILURE TO SERVE THE CORRECT PARTY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the legal malpractice action should have been dismissed because plaintiff could not have prevailed in the underlying slip and fall case. The slip and fall case was dismissed because the proper party was not served. The Second Department held that the plaintiff could not have proved liability for the slip and fall case because of the storm in progress rule:

[The] submissions demonstrated that a storm was in progress at the time of the accident, that there was no preexisting ice on the ground when the storm commenced, and that the property owner did not create or exacerbate the allegedly dangerous condition created by the storm in progress… . Since the defendants made a prima facie showing that the storm in progress rule applied to the underlying action, the burden shifted to the plaintiff to show that something other than the precipitation from the storm in progress caused the accident … . The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint because the plaintiff could not have prevailed in the underlying action against the property owner … . Blair v Loduca, 2018 NY Slip Op 05744, Second Dept 6-15-18

ATTORNEYS (MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFF COULD NOT HAVE PREVAILED IN THE UNDERLYING SLIP AND FALL CASE BECAUSE OF THE STORM IN PROGRESS RULE, LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BASED UPON A FAILURE TO SERVE THE CORRECT PARTY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/LEGAL MALPRACTICE (PLAINTIFF COULD NOT HAVE PREVAILED IN THE UNDERLYING SLIP AND FALL CASE BECAUSE OF THE STORM IN PROGRESS RULE, LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BASED UPON A FAILURE TO SERVE THE CORRECT PARTY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF COULD NOT HAVE PREVAILED IN THE UNDERLYING SLIP AND FALL CASE BECAUSE OF THE STORM IN PROGRESS RULE, LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BASED UPON A FAILURE TO SERVE THE CORRECT PARTY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (PLAINTIFF COULD NOT HAVE PREVAILED IN THE UNDERLYING SLIP AND FALL CASE BECAUSE OF THE STORM IN PROGRESS RULE, LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BASED UPON A FAILURE TO SERVE THE CORRECT PARTY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/STORM IN PROGRESS (PLAINTIFF COULD NOT HAVE PREVAILED IN THE UNDERLYING SLIP AND FALL CASE BECAUSE OF THE STORM IN PROGRESS RULE, LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BASED UPON A FAILURE TO SERVE THE CORRECT PARTY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

ALLEGATIONS OF NEGLIGENCE IN A LEGAL MALPRACTICE CONTEXT DO NOT SUPPORT A CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING A JUDICIARY LAW 487 VIOLATION, INTENT TO DECEIVE MUST BE ALLEGED WITH PARTICULARITY, JUDICIARY LAW CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the causes of action alleging legal malpractice, breach of contract, and fraud were properly dismissed. The court further found that the cause of action alleging a violation of Judiciary Law 487 should have been dismissed as well, noting that allegations of negligence do not meet the “intent to deceive” element of a Judiciary Law action:

Contrary to the defendants' contention, the cause of action alleging a violation of Judiciary Law § 487 was not duplicative of the cause of action alleging legal malpractice. “A violation of Judiciary Law § 487 requires an intent to deceive, whereas a legal malpractice claim is based on negligent conduct” … .

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging a violation of Judiciary Law § 487. A chronic extreme pattern of legal delinquency is not a basis for liability pursuant to Judiciary Law § 487 … . Further, the plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient facts demonstrating that the defendant attorneys had the “intent to deceive the court or any party” … . Allegations regarding an act of deceit or intent to deceive must be stated with particularity (see CPLR 3016[b]… ). That the defendants commenced the underlying action on behalf of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs failed to prevail in that action does not provide a basis for a cause of action alleging a violation of Judiciary Law § 487 to recover the legal fees incurred. Bill Birds, Inc. v Stein Law Firm, P.C., 2018 NY Slip Op 05743, Second Dept 8-15-18

ATTORNEYS (ALLEGATIONS OF NEGLIGENCE IN A LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION DO NOT SUPPORT A CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING A JUDICIARY LAW 487 VIOLATION, INTENT TO DECEIVE MUST BE ALLEGED WITH PARTICULARITY, JUDICIARY LAW CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/LEGAL MALPRACTICE  (ALLEGATIONS OF NEGLIGENCE IN A LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION DO NOT SUPPORT A CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING A JUDICIARY LAW 487 VIOLATION, INTENT TO DECEIVE MUST BE ALLEGED WITH PARTICULARITY, JUDICIARY LAW CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (LEGAL MALPRACTICE, ALLEGATIONS OF NEGLIGENCE IN A LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION DO NOT SUPPORT A CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING A JUDICIARY LAW 487 VIOLATION, INTENT TO DECEIVE MUST BE ALLEGED WITH PARTICULARITY, JUDICIARY LAW CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (JUDICIARY LAW 487, ALLEGATIONS OF NEGLIGENCE IN A LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION DO NOT SUPPORT A CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING A JUDICIARY LAW 487 VIOLATION, INTENT TO DECEIVE MUST BE ALLEGED WITH PARTICULARITY, JUDICIARY LAW CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3016 (JUDICIARY LAW 487, ALLEGATIONS OF NEGLIGENCE IN A LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION DO NOT SUPPORT A CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING A JUDICIARY LAW 487 VIOLATION, INTENT TO DECEIVE MUST BE ALLEGED WITH PARTICULARITY, JUDICIARY LAW CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/JUDICIARY LAW 487 (ATTORNEYS, CIVIL PROCEDURE, ALLEGATIONS OF NEGLIGENCE IN A LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION DO NOT SUPPORT A CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING A JUDICIARY LAW 487 VIOLATION, INTENT TO DECEIVE MUST BE ALLEGED WITH PARTICULARITY, JUDICIARY LAW CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

MOTIONS TO DISMISS LEGAL MALPRACTICE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST ORIGINAL COUNSEL FOR FAILING TO FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM AND AGAINST SUCCESSOR COUNSEL FOR FAILURE TO SEEK LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the motions to dismiss the legal malpractice causes of action against original (Neimark defendants) and successor counsel (Budin defendants) were properly denied. Original counsel did not file a notice of claim and successor counsel did not seek leave to file a late notice of claim:

The Budin defendants, as successor counsel, had an opportunity to protect plaintiff’s rights by seeking discretionary leave, pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e(5), to serve a late notice of claim. Whether the Budin defendants would have prevailed on such motion will have to be determined by the trier of fact … . We do not find this determination to be speculative given that Supreme Court will weigh established factors in exercising its General Municipal Law § 50-e(5) discretion … .

We agree with plaintiff’s argument that the Neimark defendants’ failure to serve a timely notice of claim, as of right, on the New York City Department of Education in the underlying personal injury action remains a potential proximate cause of his alleged damages. Plaintiff has a viable claim against the Neimark defendants despite the fact that the Budin defendants were substituted as counsel before the expiration of time to move to serve a late notice of claim. Thus, the Budin defendants’ substitution can only be deemed a superseding and intervening act that severed any potential liability for legal malpractice on the part of the Neimark defendants if a determination is made that a motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim would have been successful in the underlying personal injury action … . Liporace v Neimark & Neimark, LLP, 2018 NY Slip Op 04668, First Dept 6-26-18

​ATTORNEYS (MALPRACTICE, MOTIONS TO DISMISS LEGAL MALPRACTICE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST ORIGINAL COUNSEL FOR FAILING TO FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM AND AGAINST SUCCESSOR COUNSEL FOR FAILURE TO SEEK LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))/LEGAL MALPRACTICE (MOTIONS TO DISMISS LEGAL MALPRACTICE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST ORIGINAL COUNSEL FOR FAILING TO FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM AND AGAINST SUCCESSOR COUNSEL FOR FAILURE TO SEEK LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (LEGAL MALPRACTICE, MOTIONS TO DISMISS LEGAL MALPRACTICE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST ORIGINAL COUNSEL FOR FAILING TO FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM AND AGAINST SUCCESSOR COUNSEL FOR FAILURE TO SEEK LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))/EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (NOTICE OF CLAIM, LEGAL MALPRACTICE, MOTIONS TO DISMISS LEGAL MALPRACTICE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST ORIGINAL COUNSEL FOR FAILING TO FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM AND AGAINST SUCCESSOR COUNSEL FOR FAILURE TO SEEK LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, LEGAL MALPRACTICE, MOTIONS TO DISMISS LEGAL MALPRACTICE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST ORIGINAL COUNSEL FOR FAILING TO FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM AND AGAINST SUCCESSOR COUNSEL FOR FAILURE TO SEEK LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))

, , ,

DEFENDANT ATTORNEYS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFFS SUFFERED NO DAMAGES AS A RESULT OF DELAYS IN THE DEFENDANTS’ HANDLING OF EVICTION PROCEEDINGS, ALLEGING THAT PLAINTIFFS’ DAMAGES WERE SPECULATIVE MERELY POINTED TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFFS’ PROOF AND WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN DEFENDANTS’ FAVOR (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant attorneys failed to demonstrate plaintiffs suffered no damages in this legal malpractice action. Plaintiffs alleged defendants delayed in evicting plaintiffs’ tenants resulting in $500,000 in lost rent. Defendants, in their motion for summary judgment, alleged only that plaintiffs’ damages were speculative, which merely pointed to gaps in plaintiffs’ proof and is never enough for an award of summary judgment:

The defendants failed to submit evidence establishing, prima facie, that the plaintiffs are unable to prove at least one essential element of the cause of action alleging legal malpractice … . The defendants’ styling of the plaintiffs’ damages theory as “speculative” was merely an effort to point out gaps in the plaintiff’s proof, which was insufficient to meet the defendants’ burden as the party moving for summary judgment … .

Moreover, even if the plaintiffs’ damages cannot be precisely calculated at this stage, expenses to the client resulting from attorney delays are deemed to be ascertainable damages in connection with a legal malpractice cause of action … . Iannucci v Kucker & Bruh, LLP, 2018 NY Slip Op 03514, Second Dept 5-16-18

​ATTORNEYS (MALPRACTICE, DEFENDANT ATTORNEYS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFFS SUFFERED NO DAMAGES AS A RESULT OF DELAYS IN THE DEFENDANTS’ HANDLING OF EVICTION PROCEEDINGS, ALLEGING THAT PLAINTIFFS’ DAMAGES WERE SPECULATIVE MERELY POINTED TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFFS’ PROOF AND WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN DEFENDANTS’ FAVOR (SECOND DEPT))/LEGAL MALPRACTICE (DEFENDANT ATTORNEYS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFFS SUFFERED NO DAMAGES AS A RESULT OF DELAYS IN THE DEFENDANTS’ HANDLING OF EVICTION PROCEEDINGS, ALLEGING THAT PLAINTIFFS’ DAMAGES WERE SPECULATIVE MERELY POINTED TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFFS’ PROOF AND WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN DEFENDANTS’ FAVOR (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (LEGAL MALPRACTICE, DEFENDANT ATTORNEYS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFFS SUFFERED NO DAMAGES AS A RESULT OF DELAYS IN THE DEFENDANTS’ HANDLING OF EVICTION PROCEEDINGS, ALLEGING THAT PLAINTIFFS’ DAMAGES WERE SPECULATIVE MERELY POINTED TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFFS’ PROOF AND WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN DEFENDANTS’ FAVOR (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, MALPRACTICE, DEFENDANT ATTORNEYS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFFS SUFFERED NO DAMAGES AS A RESULT OF DELAYS IN THE DEFENDANTS’ HANDLING OF EVICTION PROCEEDINGS, ALLEGING THAT PLAINTIFFS’ DAMAGES WERE SPECULATIVE MERELY POINTED TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFFS’ PROOF AND WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN DEFENDANTS’ FAVOR (SECOND DEPT))/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (EVIDENCE, LEGAL MALPRACTICE,  DEFENDANT ATTORNEYS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFFS SUFFERED NO DAMAGES AS A RESULT OF DELAYS IN THE DEFENDANTS’ HANDLING OF EVICTION PROCEEDINGS, ALLEGING THAT PLAINTIFFS’ DAMAGES WERE SPECULATIVE MERELY POINTED TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFFS’ PROOF AND WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN DEFENDANTS’ FAVOR (SECOND DEPT))

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