…negligent in not objecting to the judgment debtor’s bankruptcy proceeding…

Posted on December 5, 2022 by Richard Klass

In Basile v Law Offices of Neal Brickman, P.C., 2022 NY Slip Op 06079 [1st Dept Nov. 1, 2022], the court affirmed the denial of the law firm’s motion to dismiss, holding:

The legal malpractice claim may not be barred by the three-year statute of limitations (CPLR 214[6]). Plaintiff contends that the claim was tolled by the continuous representation doctrine based on alleged emails and telephone conversations about collecting on plaintiff’s money judgment against the judgment debtor following its entry in 2010, at which time the judgment debtor did not have sufficient assets to satisfy the judgment. Defendants, however, assert that there was no continuous representation because plaintiff had no communication with them concerning collecting on the unsatisfied judgment until August 2019, when the limitations period on the instant claim had expired. These factual contentions concerning whether defendant continued to represent plaintiff during the relevant time period so as to toll the limitations period give rise to factual issues that cannot be resolved in this pre-answer motion to dismiss (see Boesky v. Levine, 193 A.D.3d 403, 147 N.Y.S.3d 2 [1st Dept. 2021]; Johnson v. Law Off. of Kenneth B. Schwartz, 145 A.D.3d 608, 612, 46 N.Y.S.3d 1 [1st Dept. 2016]).

Furthermore, the complaint’s allegations are sufficient to state a cause of action for legal malpractice. Plaintiff alleges that defendants were negligent in not objecting to the judgment debtor’s bankruptcy proceeding in 2015, which resulted in a discharge order that barred plaintiff from collecting on his money judgment against her. Defendants argue that they did not breach their duty to plaintiff by not intervening in the bankruptcy proceeding because they did not receive notice of the proceeding. Defendants submit the bankruptcy petition, which, in naming plaintiff as a creditor, included an outdated address for defendants and omitted the name of defendants’ law firm or a suite number. These undisputed facts, however, are not sufficient to find as a matter of law that defendants did not breach their duty to plaintiff. Defendants relocated to their new office in September 2014 and the judgment debtor filed her bankruptcy petition in January 2015, three months later. The bankruptcy petition included the name of the attorney who had assisted in plaintiff’s underlying action against the judgment debtor. At the very least, a factual issue exists as to whether the notice of the bankruptcy proceeding to object on plaintiff’s behalf was forwarded to defendants, which cannot be resolved at this juncture. As to proximate cause, contrary to defendants’ contention, proof of the collectability on a judgment is not an essential element of the legal malpractice claim, and arises after the “case within the case” has been proven (Lindenman v. Kreitzer, 7 A.D.3d 30, 35, 775 N.Y.S.2d 4 [1st Dept. 2004]).

Richard A. Klass, Esq.
Your Court Street Lawyer

#CourtStreetLawyer #bankruptcy-proceeding

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.com with any questions.

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

R. A. Klass
Your Court Street Lawyer

Next post
Previous post

Plaintiff failed to allege that “but for” defendant’s negligent conduct, he would have prevailed.

Posted on September 13, 2022 by Richard Klass

In Markov v Barrows, 172 NYS3d 434, 435 [1st Dept 2022], the court dismissed the legal malpractice action as follows:

Supreme Court properly dismissed plaintiff’s legal malpractice cause of action in the original complaint because he failed to allege that “but for” defendant’s negligent conduct, he would have prevailed in the underlying action (Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP v. Fashion Boutique of Short Hills, Inc., 10 A.D.3d 267, 272, 780 N.Y.S.2d 593 [1st Dept. 2004]; see Rudolf v. Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 N.Y.3d 438, 442, 835 N.Y.S.2d 534, 867 N.E.2d 385 [2007]). Plaintiff’s citation to a ruling in the underlying action denying dismissal of his fraud claim, among others, did not, without more, show that he would have prevailed in the underlying action had defendant timely commenced it by naming the proper parties in the original complaint (see Sonnenschine v. Giacomo, 295 A.D.2d 287, 287, 744 N.Y.S.2d 396 [1st Dept. 2002]).

Further, Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint because the claims asserted in the proposed amended complaint are devoid of merit (see Lewis v. Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price & Hecht, LLP, 205 A.D.3d 618, 166 N.Y.S.3d 864 [1st Dept. 2022])

Richard A. Klass, Esq.
Your Court Street Lawyer

#CourtStreetLawyer #legalmalpractice #prevailed

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

R. A. Klass
Your Court Street Lawyer

Next post
Previous post

[Don’t] Play It Again, Sam

Posted on May 12, 2022 by Richard Klass

In July 2012 (the “2012 Action”), the plaintiff filed suit in the Civil Court against Defendants. In the 2012 Action, the plaintiff sued for the following: “Action to recover the sum of $18,000, with interest thereon from January 1, 2009, based upon a) mistaken charge to [Plaintiff’s] credit card account by Defendants in the amount of $18,000.00, and Defendants’ failure and refusal to credit said charge back to Plaintiff; b) breach of contract; and c) unjust enrichment.”

In January 2020, after court orders marking the trial date “final,” the Civil Court Judge entered an Order dismissing the 2012 Action. At the hearing, the Court found that the plaintiff “had notice of [the] trial date since November of 2019” and thereafter denied the application for an adjournment of the trial.

Second Action Filed

In March 2021, the plaintiff commenced a new action in the Supreme Court (the “2021 Action”), asserting claims against the defendants relating to a dispute regarding specific charges on his account. He also asserted claims for unjust enrichment, conversion, breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith, injunctive relief, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and declaratory relief. The plaintiff specifically asserted in the complaint that two sets of credit-card charges were erroneously paid, totaling approximately $18,000. In the 2021 Action, the plaintiff’s additional causes of action arose from a nucleus of operative facts that were identical to the ones adjudicated through judgment in the 2012 Action.

Doctrine of Res Judicata

The defendants retained Richard A. Klass, Esq., Your Court Street Lawyer, to move for dismissal of the 2021 Action based on the doctrine of res judicata. Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5), a cause of action should be dismissed when it “may not be maintained” due to the doctrine of res judicata (also known as “claim preclusion”). In the 2021 Action, the complaint asserted claims for the transactions that had already been adjudicated in the 2012 Action. Under New York’s “transactional analysis approach to res judicata, ‘once a claim is brought to its final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy.”’ In re Hunter, 4 N.Y.3d 260, 269 (2005).

It was pointed out that New York courts regularly dismiss actions under CPLR 3211(a)(5) based on the doctrine of res judicata. See, e.g., Board of Managers of the 129 Condominium, v. 129 Lafayette Street, LLC, 2012 N.Y. Slip Op 33349 at p. 11 (NY Sup. 2012) (granting motion to dismiss action under res judicata because the claims in both actions arose out of the “same transaction or series of transactions”); Douglas Elliman LLC v. Bergere, 98 A.D.3d 642, 642 (2nd Dept. 2012) (dismissing action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) based on the doctrine of res judicata); Corto v. Lefrak, 203 A.D.2d 94, 95 (1st Dept. 1994) (affirming dismissal of action based on res judicata and collateral estoppel); Paar v. Bay Crest Assoc., 35 N.Y.S.3 190 (2nd Dept. 2016) (doctrine of res judicata barred subsequent breach of contract action); Plaza PH2001 LLC v. Plaza Residential Owner LP, 947 N.Y.S.2d 498 (1st Dept. 2014).

Court looks at “Factual Grouping” of Claims

The fact that the plaintiff, in the 2021 Action, alleged additional causes of action — relative to the 2012 Action — did not alter the res judicata analysis: “When alternative theories are available to recover what is essentially the same relief for harm arising out of the same or related facts such as would constitute a single ‘factual grouping’…, the circumstances that the theories involve materially different elements of proof will not justify presenting the claim by two different actions.” SSJ Development of Sheepshead Bay I, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, 2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 30913 at p. 5 (NY Sup. 2014). Additionally, “[i]f the party against whom res judicata is invoked had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the claim in a prior proceeding based on the same transaction, but did not raise it therein, he will be barred from raising it in a subsequent action.” Schwartzreich v. E.P. Carting Co., 688 N.Y.S.2d 370, 441 (1st Dept. 1998). The rule applies not only to claims actually litigated, but also to claims that could have been raised in the prior litigation. O’Brien v. City of Syracuse, 54 N.Y.2d 353, 357-58 (1981).

Second Action Dismissed

The Supreme Court Justice granted the motion to dismiss the 2021 Action. In his decision, the judge held: “The Court observes that the doctrine [of res judicata] ‘precludes litigation of matters that could or should have been raised in a prior proceeding between the parties arising from the same factual grouping, transactions or series of transactions.’ (see, DeSanto Construction Corporation v. Royal Insurance Company, 278 AD2d 357 [2^nd Dept. 2000].”

Richard A. Klass, Esq.
Your Court Street Lawyer

#CourtStreetLawyer #resjudicata

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

R. A. Klass
Your Court Street Lawyer

Next post
Previous post

Documents submitted by the defendants do not utterly refute the factual allegations.

Posted on February 18, 2022 by Richard Klass

In Singh v Pliskin, Rubano, Baum & Vitulli, 200 AD3d 927, 929 [2d Dept 2021]. The court denied the law firm’s motion to dismiss, holding:

The complaint, as augmented by the affidavit of Singh submitted in opposition to the defendants’ motion to dismiss, sufficiently stated a cause of action for legal malpractice (see CPLR 3211 [a] [7]; Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]; Doe v Ascend Charter Schs., 181 AD3d 648, 649-650 [2020]). Contrary to the defendants’ contention, at this preliminary stage of the litigation, they failed to conclusively demonstrate that the plaintiffs’ subsequent attorney had a sufficient opportunity to correct the defendants’ alleged negligence, such that they did not proximately cause any damages flowing from that negligence (see Gobindram v Ruskin Moscou Faltischek, P.C., 175 AD3d 586, 591 [2019]). The defendants also failed to demonstrate that their actions were protected by the attorney judgment rule (see generally Rosner v Paley, 65 NY2d 736, 738 [1985]; Katsoris v Bodnar & Milone, LLP, 186 AD3d at 1505).

The documents submitted by the defendants do not utterly refute the factual allegations of the complaint and do not conclusively establish a defense to the plaintiffs’ legal malpractice claim as a matter of law (see CPLR 3211 [a] [1]; Cali v Maio, 189 AD3d 1337, 1338 [2020]; Gorunkati v Baker Sanders, LLC, 179 AD3d 904, 906 [2020]).

Richard A. Klass, Esq.
Your Court Street Lawyer

#CourtStreetLawyer #legalmalpractice

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

R. A. Klass
Your Court Street Lawyer

Next post
Previous post

Legal malpractice context…continuous representation doctrine…generally limited to…a specific legal matter…

Posted on February 3, 2022 by Richard Klass

In Goodman v Weiss, Zarett, Brofman, Sonnenklar & Levy, P.C., 199 AD3d 659, 661-62 [2d Dept 2021], court affirmed the dismissal the client’s malpractice action as time-barred, holding:

The plaintiff contends that the defendant’s malpractice consisted of improperly negotiating his separation from his previous employer and his new employment contract with the hospitals. However, an action alleging legal malpractice must be commenced within three years from the date of accrual (see CPLR 214 [6]). A claim accrues when the malpractice is committed, not when the client discovers it (see Shumsky v Eisenstein, 96 NY2d 164, 166 [2001]). “Causes of action alleging legal malpractice which would otherwise be time-barred are timely if the doctrine of continuous representation applies” (DeStaso v Condon Resnick, LLP, 90 AD3d 809, 812 [2011]). “In the legal malpractice context, the continuous representation doctrine tolls the statute of limitations where there is a mutual understanding of the need for further representation on the specific subject matter underlying the malpractice claim” (id. at 812). Application of the continuous representation doctrine is generally “limited to the course of representation concerning a specific legal matter . . . ; [t]he concern, of course, is whether there has been continuous [representation], and not merely a continuing relation” between the client and the lawyer (Shumsky v Eisenstein, 96 NY2d at 168 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the legal malpractice cause of action at issue was time-barred under CPLR 214 (6), and the continuous representation doctrine did not toll the statute of limitations. That doctrine “tolls the running of the statute of limitations on a cause of action against a professional defendant only so long as the defendant continues to represent the plaintiff[s] in connection with the particular transaction which is the subject of the action and not merely during the continuation of a general professional relationship” (Maurice W. Pomfrey & Assoc., Ltd. v Hancock & Estabrook, LLP, 50 AD3d 1531, 1533 [2008] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Although the plaintiff alleges that the defendant continued to provide legal services to him between January 2011 and November 2013, he did not seek or obtain the defendant’s legal services at any time during that period and, when the plaintiff did subsequently engage the defendant’s legal services, that engagement was with regard to the performance of distinct services related to a different subject matter. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly determined that the continuous representation toll was inapplicable and granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to dismiss the legal malpractice cause of action as time-barred.

Richard A. Klass, Esq.
Your Court Street Lawyer

#CourtStreetLawyer #continuous-representation

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

R. A. Klass
Your Court Street Lawyer

Next post
Previous post