Cause of Action

Client alleged attorney failed to provide legal advice … immigration consequences

Posted on by

The First Department kept a legal malpractice case alive and partially denied the attorney’s motion to dismiss action, where the client alleged that the attorney failed to provide legal advice. In Sehgal v DiRaimondo, 165 AD3d 435, 436-37 [1st Dept 2018], the court held:

We affirm dismissal of part of the malpractice claim on alternative grounds. 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 N.Y.2d 169, 173, 518 N.Y.S.2d 605, 511 N.E.2d 1126 [1987]; Yong Wong Park v. Wolff & Samson, P.C., 56 A.D.3d 351, 867 N.Y.S.2d 424 [1st Dept. 2008], lv denied 12 N.Y.3d 704, 876 N.Y.S.2d 705, 904 N.E.2d 842 [2009] ). 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 (see generally Carmel v. Lunney, supra; see also Bass & Ullman v. Chanes, 185 A.D.2d 750, 586 N.Y.S.2d 610 [1st Dept. 1992] ). 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. Defendants’ other arguments present disputed factual issues concerning the standard of care and proximate cause that are not properly resolved on a motion to dismiss the complaint (see Urias v. Daniel P. Buttafuoco & Assoc., PLLC, 120 A.D.3d 1339, 1343, 992 N.Y.S.2d 552 [2d Dept. 2014] ).

R. A. Klass
Your Court Street Lawyer

Next post
Previous post

Judiciary Law Section 487.

Posted on by

In an action involving Judiciary Law Section 487, the court considered the issue as to what type of matter fits into the definition in the statute, holding:

Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the cause of action alleging a violation of Judiciary Law Section 487 was not duplicative of the cause of action alleging legal malpractice. “ A violation of Judiciary Law Section 487 requires an intent to deceive, whereas a legal malpractice claim is based on negligent conduct ” (Moormann v Perini & Hoerger, 65 AD3d 1106, 1108 [2009] [citation omitted]; see Lauder v Goldhamer, 122 AD3d 908, 911 [2014]; Sabalza v Salgado, 85 AD3d 436, 438 [2011]).

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 Section 487. A chronic extreme pattern of legal delinquency is not a basis for liability pursuant to Judiciary Law Section 487 (see Dupree v Voorhees, 102 AD3d 912, 913 [2013]). Further, the plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient facts demonstrating that the defendant attorneys had the “ intent to deceive the court or any party ” (Judiciary Law Section 487 [1]; see Schiller v Bender, Burrows & Rosenthal, LLP, 116 AD3d 756, 759 [2014]; Agostini v Sobol, 304 AD2d 395, 396 [2003]). Allegations regarding an act of deceit or intent to deceive must be stated with particularity (see CPLR 3016 [b]; Facebook, Inc. v DLA Piper LLP [US], 134 AD3d 610, 615 [2015]; Armstrong v Blank Rome LLP, 126 AD3d 427 [2015]; Putnam County Temple & Jewish Ctr., Inc. v Rhinebeck Sav. Bank, 87 AD3d 1118, 1120 [2011]). 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 Section 487 to recover the legal fees incurred.

Bill Birds, Inc. v Stein Law Firm, P.C., 164 AD3d 635, 637 [2d Dept 2018]

R. A. Klass
Your Court Street Lawyer

Next post
Previous post

On a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action…

Posted on by

In Garcia v Polsky, Shouldice & Rosen, P.C., 161 AD3d 828 [2d Dept 2018], the Second Department held that the law firm’s motion to dismiss its former client’s lawsuit for legal malpractice was properly denied by the Supreme Court.

” …On a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action… “

“ 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 ” (Shah v. Exxis, Inc., 138 A.D.3d 970, 971, 31 N.Y.S.3d 512; see Goshen v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 98 N.Y.2d at 326, 746 N.Y.S.2d 858, 774 N.E.2d 1190; Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d at 87–88, 614 N.Y.S.2d 972, 638 N.E.2d 511). “ In opposition to such a motion, a plaintiff may submit affidavits to remedy defects in the complaint and preserve inartfully pleaded, but potentially meritorious claims ” (Cron v. Hargro Fabrics, 91 N.Y.2d 362, 366, 670 N.Y.S.2d 973, 694 N.E.2d 56 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Nilazra, Inc. v. Karakus, Inc., 136 A.D.3d 994, 995, 25 N.Y.S.3d 650). “ Where evidentiary material is submitted and considered on a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), and the motion is not converted into one for summary judgment, the question becomes whether the plaintiff has a cause of action, not whether the plaintiff has stated one, and unless it has been shown that a material fact as claimed by the plaintiff to be one is not a fact at all and unless it can be said that no significant dispute exists regarding it, dismissal should not eventuate ” (Rabos v. R & R Bagels & Bakery, Inc., 100 A.D.3d 849, 851–852, 955 N.Y.S.2d 109; see Guggenheimer v. Ginzburg, 43 N.Y.2d 268, 274–275, 401 N.Y.S.2d 182, 372 N.E.2d 17).

5   “ Whether the complaint will later survive a motion for summary judgment, *427 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 ” (Shaya B. Pac., LLC v. Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP, 38 A.D.3d 34, 38, 827 N.Y.S.2d 231; see EBC I, Inc. v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 5 N.Y.3d 11, 19, 799 N.Y.S.2d 170, 832 N.E.2d 26).

6 7   “ 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 ” (Rudolf v. Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 N.Y.3d 438, 442, 835 N.Y.S.2d 534, 867 N.E.2d 385, quoting McCoy v. Feinman, 99 N.Y.2d 295, 301, 755 N.Y.S.2d 693, 785 N.E.2d 714). “ 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 ” (Rudolf v. Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 N.Y.3d at 442, 835 N.Y.S.2d 534, 867 N.E.2d 385).

8   Here, the law firm submitted documentary evidence in support of the motion establishing that its representation of the plaintiff was limited to his Workers’ Compensation claim. That submission did not utterly refute the plaintiff’s allegations, as augmented by his affidavit submitted in opposition to the motion, that the law firm gave him inaccurate legal advice. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) to dismiss the cause of action alleging legal malpractice insofar as asserted against the law firm.

Moreover, the complaint, as augmented by the plaintiff’s affidavit, sufficiently pleaded a cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice against the law firm. The evidentiary submissions did not show that the material facts claimed by the plaintiff to be facts were not facts at all and that no significant dispute exists regarding them. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the cause of action alleging legal malpractice insofar as asserted against the law firm.

R. A. Klass
Your Court Street Lawyer

Next post
Previous post

Evidence rebutted the malpractice claim

Posted on by

…The court found that evidence rebutted the malpractice claim….

In an action brought by a former client against his attorneys, the court determined that the complaint failed to state a cause of action. The court found that evidence rebutted the malpractice claim. The court held,

“The conclusory allegation that, but for defendants‘ negligence, plaintiff would have successfully opposed the summary judgment motion in the foreclosure action and defended the action is insufficient to support the legal malpractice claim, because the evidentiary material reveals that plaintiff had no viable defense (see West 45th St. Venture LLC v. Ladera Partners, LLC, 2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 31834[U], 2012 WL 2951192, *7–8 [Sup. Ct. N.Y. County 2012], affd 106 A.D.3d 412, 963 N.Y.S.2d 864 [1st Dept. 2013], lv denied 22 N.Y.3d 859, 981 N.Y.S.2d 370, 4 N.E.3d 382 [2014] ).” Ladera Partners, LLC v Goldberg, Scudieri & Lindenberg, P.C., 157 AD3d 467, 467 [1st Dept 2018]

R. A. Klass
Your Court Street Lawyer

Previous post
Next post

Underlying claim based upon speculation and could not be sustained

Posted on by

…claim based upon speculation…

In an action brought by a former client against his attorneys, the court determined that the complaint failed to state a cause of action. The court found that, while the complaint could be amended, the underlying claim was based upon speculation and could not be sustained. The court held,

“ Nevertheless, the amended complaint must be dismissed, because plaintiff’s claim that, but for defendants’ negligence, he would have recovered the full $3 million that he was owed during the bankruptcy filed by nonparty Majestic Capital, Ltd., consists of “ gross speculations on future events ” (Sherwood Group v. Dornbush, Mensch, Mandelstam & Silverman, 191 A.D.2d 292, 294, 594 N.Y.S.2d 766 [1st Dept. 1993]; see also Heritage Partners, LLC v. Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, 133 A.D.3d 428, 19 N.Y.S.3d 511 [1st Dept. 2015], lv denied 27 N.Y.3d 904, 36 N.Y.S.3d 616, 56 N.E.3d 896 [2016]; Turk v. Angel, 293 A.D.2d 284, 740 N.Y.S.2d 50 [1st Dept. 2002], lv denied 100 N.Y.2d 510, 766 N.Y.S.2d 164, 798 N.E.2d 348 [2003] ).” Hickey v Kaufman, 156 AD3d 436 [1st Dept 2017].

R. A. Klass
Your Court Street Lawyer

Previous post
Next post