Cause of Action

…plaintiff must show that he or she would have prevailed…

Posted on by

In 126 Main St., LLC v Kriegsman, 2023 NY Slip Op 03758 [2d Dept July 12, 2023], the court reversed the lower court’s order and dismissed the client’s action. The court held:

“ ‘To state a cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must allege: (1) that the attorney failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession; and (2) that the attorney’s breach of the duty proximately caused the plaintiff actual and ascertainable damages’ ” (Katsoris v. Bodnar & Milone, LLP, 186 A.D.3d 1504, 1505, 131 N.Y.S.3d 89, quoting Dempster v. Liotti, 86 A.D.3d 169, 176, 924 N.Y.S.2d 484; see Silverman v. Eccleston Law, LLC, 208 A.D.3d 705, 706, 173 N.Y.S.3d 78). “To establish causation in a legal malpractice action, ‘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’ ” (Katsoris v. Bodnar & Milone, LLP, 186 A.D.3d at 1505, 131 N.Y.S.3d 89, quoting Rudolf v. Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 N.Y.3d 438, 442, 835 N.Y.S.2d 534, 867 N.E.2d 385). “ ‘Conclusory allegations of damages or injuries predicated on speculation cannot suffice for a malpractice action, and dismissal is warranted where the allegations in the complaint are merely conclusory and speculative’ ” (Denisco v. Uysal, 195 A.D.3d 989, 991, 146 N.Y.S.3d 813, quoting Bua v. Purcell & Ingrao, P.C., 99 A.D.3d 843, 848, 952 N.Y.S.2d 592; see York v. Frank, 209 A.D.3d 804, 807, 176 N.Y.S.3d 133). Here, the plaintiff failed to state a cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice because the plaintiff’s allegation that the restaurant would have had increased profits but for the defendants’ alleged malpractice is conclusory and speculative (see York v. Frank, 209 A.D.3d at 807, 176 N.Y.S.3d 133; Denisco v. Uysal, 195 A.D.3d at 991, 146 N.Y.S.3d 813).

Richard A. Klass, Esq.
Your Court Street Lawyer

#CourtStreetLawyer #litigation #legalmalpractice

Richard A. Klass, Esq., maintains a law firm engaged in civil litigation at 16 Court Street, 28th Floor, Brooklyn, New York. He may be reached at (718) COURT●ST or RichKlass@courtstreetlaw.comcreate new email with any questions.

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

© 2023 Richard A. Klass

Next post
Previous post

Independent causes of action for sanctions?

Posted on by

“New York does not recognize independent causes of action for sanctions under 22 NYCRR 130–1.1 or CPLR 8303–a (see 360 W. 11th LLC v. ACG Credit Co. II, LLC, 90 A.D.3d 552, 554, 935 N.Y.S.2d 289 [1st Dept. 2011]; Cerciello v. Admiral Ins. Brokerage Corp., 90 A.D.3d 967, 968, 936 N.Y.S.2d 224 [2d Dept. 2011]).” See, The N. Flatts LLC v Belkin Burden Goldman, LLP, 190 NYS3d 44, 46 [1st Dept 2023].

Richard A. Klass, Esq.
Your Court Street Lawyer

#CourtStreetLawyer #litigation #legalmalpractice

Richard A. Klass, Esq., maintains a law firm engaged in civil litigation at 16 Court Street, 28th Floor, Brooklyn, New York. He may be reached at (718) COURT●ST or RichKlass@courtstreetlaw.comcreate new email with any questions.

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

© 2023 Richard A. Klass

Next post
Previous post

The statements in the complaint must be “sufficiently particular…”

Posted on by

In Buchanan v Law Offices of Sheldon E. Green, P.C., 215 AD3d 793, 795 [2d Dept 2023], the court held:

“To state a cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must allege: (1) that the attorney failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession; and (2) that the attorney’s breach of the duty proximately caused the plaintiff actual and ascertainable damages” (Dempster v. Liotti, 86 A.D.3d 169, 176, 924 N.Y.S.2d 484 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Joseph v. Fensterman, 204 A.D.3d 766, 770, 167 N.Y.S.3d 106; Katsoris v. Bodnar & Milone, LLP, 186 A.D.3d 1504, 1506, 131 N.Y.S.3d 89; Lopez v. Lozner & Mastropietro, P.C., 166 A.D.3d 871, 873, 88 N.Y.S.3d 554). The statements in the complaint must be “sufficiently particular to give the court and parties notice of the transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences, intended to be proved and the material elements of each cause of action or defense” (CPLR 3013; see Mid–Hudson Val. Fed. Credit Union v. Quartararo & Lois, PLLC, 31 N.Y.3d 1090, 1091, 78 N.Y.S.3d 703, 103 N.E.3d 774). “[B]are legal conclusions” do not suffice, and “[d]ismissal of the complaint is warranted if the plaintiff fails to assert facts in support of an element of the claim, or if the factual allegations and inferences to be drawn from them do not allow for an enforceable right of recovery” (Connaughton v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 29 N.Y.3d 137, 141–142, 53 N.Y.S.3d 598, 75 N.E.3d 1159 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

Richard A. Klass, Esq.
Your Court Street Lawyer

#CourtStreetLawyer #litigation #legalmalpractice

Richard A. Klass, Esq., maintains a law firm engaged in civil litigation at 16 Court Street, 28th Floor, Brooklyn, New York. He may be reached at (718) COURT●ST or RichKlass@courtstreetlaw.comcreate new email with any questions.

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

© 2023 Richard A. Klass

Next post
Previous post

The court dealt with the claim of attorney’s deceit.

Posted on by

In Philip S. Schwartzman, Inc. v Pliskin, Rubano, Baum & Vitulli, 215 AD3d 699, 702 [2d Dept 2023], the court dealt with the claim of attorney’s deceit, holding, opining:

“Under Judiciary Law § 487(1), 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” (Altman v. DiPreta, 204 A.D.3d 965, 968, 168 N.Y.S.3d 86). “Since Judiciary Law § 487 authorizes an award of damages only to ‘the party injured,’ an injury to the plaintiff resulting from the alleged deceitful conduct of the defendant attorney is an essential element of a cause of action based on a violation of that statute” (Gumarova v. Law Offs. of Paul A. Boronow, P.C., 129 A.D.3d 911, 911, 12 N.Y.S.3d 187 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

Richard A. Klass, Esq.
Your Court Street Lawyer

#CourtStreetLawyer #litigation #legalmalpractice

Richard A. Klass, Esq., maintains a law firm engaged in civil litigation at 16 Court Street, 28th Floor, Brooklyn, New York. He may be reached at (718) COURT●ST or RichKlass@courtstreetlaw.comcreate new email with any questions.

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

© 2023 Richard A. Klass

Next post
Previous post

No single statute of limitations for causes of action alleging breach of fiduciary duty

Posted on by

In Jadidian v Goldstein, 210 AD3d 969, 969-70 [2d Dept 2022], the court affirmed the dismissal of a claim against an attorney based on the statute of limitations, holding:

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to dismiss the cause of action alleging breach of fiduciary duty. There is no single statute of limitations for causes of action alleging breach of fiduciary duty (see IDT Corp. v Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., 12 N.Y.3d 132, 139, 879 N.Y.S.2d 355, 907 N.E.2d 268; Matter of Hersh, 198 A.D.3d 766, 769, 156 N.Y.S.3d 243). “Where the relief sought is equitable in nature, the statute of limitations is six years, and where the relief sought is purely monetary, the statute of limitations is generally three years” (Matter of Hersh, 198 A.D.3d at 769, 156 N.Y.S.3d 243). However, “regardless of the relief sought, ‘where an allegation of fraud is essential to a breach of fiduciary duty claim, courts have applied a six-year statute of limitations under CPLR 213(8)’ ” (id., quoting IDT Corp. v Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., 12 N.Y.3d at 139, 879 N.Y.S.2d 355, 907 N.E.2d 268; see McDonnell v. Bradley, 109 A.D.3d 592, 594, 970 N.Y.S.2d 612). A cause of action alleging breach of fiduciary duty “accrues at the time of the [alleged] breach, even though the injured party may not know of the existence of the wrong or injury” (Matter of Hersh, 198 A.D.3d at 769, 156 N.Y.S.3d 243 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Sternberg v Continuum Health Partners, Inc., 186 A.D.3d 1554, 1557, 131 N.Y.S.3d 356).

Here, the cause of action alleging breach of fiduciary duty was subject to a three-year statute of limitations since the relief sought was monetary in nature and the complaint failed to allege all the requisite elements of fraud, including justifiable reliance (see Eurycleia Partners, LP v. Seward & Kissel, LLP, 12 N.Y.3d 553, 562, 883 N.Y.S.2d 147, 910 N.E.2d 976; IDT Corp. v Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., 12 N.Y.3d at 140, 879 N.Y.S.2d 355, 907 N.E.2d 268; Oppedisano v. D’Agostino, 196 A.D.3d 497, 499, 151 N.Y.S.3d 150). As the plaintiffs maintain, the cause of action alleging breach of fiduciary duty began to run, at the latest, on January 11, 2016, when the defendants allegedly commenced the prior legal malpractice action “to cover up their … negligence.” Thus, since the plaintiffs did not commence the instant action until March 24, 2021, more than three years later, the cause of action alleging breach of fiduciary duty was time-barred.

Richard A. Klass, Esq.
Your Court Street Lawyer

#CourtStreetLawyer #statuteoflimitations #breach

Richard A. Klass, Esq., maintains a law firm engaged in civil litigation at 16 Court Street, 28th Floor, Brooklyn, New York. He may be reached at (718) COURT●ST or RichKlass@courtstreetlaw.comcreate new email with any questions.

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

© 2023 Richard A. Klass

Next post
Previous post