An attorney-client relationship may exist even if there’s no written retainer agreement.

Posted on October 21, 2021 by Richard Klass

Edelman v Berman, 195 AD3d 995 [2d Dept 2021] serves as a good reminder that, just because there is no written retainer agreement, does not mean that an attorney-client relationship does not possibly exist. The court held:

An attorney-client relationship may arise even in the absence of a written retainer agreement, and a court must look to the words and actions of the parties to determine whether such a relationship exists (see Tropp v. Lumer, 23 A.D.3d 550, 551, 806 N.Y.S.2d 599). Here, according the plaintiff the benefit of every favorable inference, she sufficiently alleged the existence of an attorney-client relationship (see Hall v. Hobbick, 192 A.D.3d 776, 144 N.Y.S.3d 88; see also Tropp v. Lumer, 23 A.D.3d at 551, 806 N.Y.S.2d 599).

Richard A. Klass, Esq.
Your Court Street Lawyer

#CourtStreetLawyer #retainer-agreement

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.

R. A. Klass
Your Court Street Lawyer

Next post
Previous post

Out of State, Out of Mind: The partial demise of the “Separate Entity” rule?

Posted on October 7, 2021 by Richard Klass

The judgment debtor and his wife maintained a joint account at JPMorgan Chase Bank at a branch located in New York. The judgment creditor’s attorney served a restraining notice on Chase’s Court Orders and Levies Department located in Ohio. The bank restrained the joint account and the judgment debtor squawked that the restraining notice should not be honored due to the “separate entity” rule.

The “Separate Entity” Rule

The “Separate Entity” rule derived from a century-old case in which the New York State Court of Appeals held that different branches of a bank are considered separate and distinct from one another. Later court decisions interpreted this rule in the context of judgment enforcement as meaning that a restraining notice served on one bank branch did not extend to the deposits held by a debtor in another branch. Therefore, a judgment creditor had to serve the restraining notice on the specific bank branch in which the debtor maintained an account.

In Koehler v. Bank of Bermuda Ltd., 12 NY3d 533 [2009], the court held that a turnover order directing a garnishee bank in Bermuda was enforceable because the bank had a presence through a subsidiary in New York. The court held that “a court sitting in New York that has personal jurisdiction over a garnishee bank can order the bank to produce stock certificates located outside New York pursuant to CPLR 5225(b).”

In Motorola Credit Corp. v. Standard Chartered Bank, 24 NY3d 149 [2014], the court clarified its prior opinion by holding that “service of a restraining notice on a garnishee bank’s New York branch is ineffective under the separate entity rule to freeze assets held in the bank’s foreign branches.” The court recognized that “abolition of the separate entity rule would result in serious consequences in the realm of international banking to the detriment of New York’s preeminence in global financial affairs.”

Service on Chase’s Court Orders and Levies Department upheld

The judgment creditor retained Richard A. Klass, Esq., Your Court Street Lawyer, to commence a turnover proceeding to obtain a court order for the bank to turn over the moneys restrained in the joint bank account maintained by the judgment debtor and his wife. Both the judgment debtor and his wife filed opposition papers claiming that, pursuant to the separate entity rule, the restraining notice should be declared ineffective since the specific branch in which they maintained their account was not served but rather at the bank’s Court Orders and Levies Department in Ohio.

In reply, the creditor countered that the restraining notice was served at the Court Orders and Levies Department according to the bank’s own instructions. The bank accepted the notice and recognized the restraint. Further, the respondents waived any affirmative defense of lack of personal jurisdiction.

The judge determined that the restraining notice was effective against the debtor’s account:

“A fair reading of Motorola indicates the Court of Appeal’s primary concern over international banking policies, not the type of transaction the parties in this proceeding present with respect to the assets held by JPMorgan in New York. Specifically, it is readily apparent that JPMorgan should not fear the risks of competing claims and double liability, nor the issue of legal and regulatory schemes inasmuch as this Court’s primary concern is the property restrained in New York.”

Accordingly, the judge granted the application to continue “the imposition of a restraining notice against the judgment debtor’s bank account to secure funds for later transfer to the judgment creditor through a sheriff’s execution or turnover proceeding.”

At this point, almost all banks maintain central subpoena/legal departments at which restraining notices may be served. The practical effect of the partial abrogation of the separate entity rule is that a creditor is able to serve a bank’s central department without having to serve a particular branch where the debtor maintains an account.

Richard A. Klass, Esq.
Your Court Street Lawyer

#CourtStreetLawyer #separate-entity

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

R. A. Klass
Your Court Street Lawyer

Next post
Previous post

Question as to standing, sufficient to justify denial of the motion to dismiss this legal malpractice case.

Posted on September 23, 2021 by Richard Klass

In Golden Jubilee Realty, LLC v Castro, 196 AD3d 680, 681-82 [2d Dept 2021], the court held that the plaintiff raised a question as to standing to sue the attorney for malpractice sufficient to justify denial of the attorney’s motion to dismiss the case.

The Supreme Court erred in granting that branch of Pacht’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (3) to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as asserted against him based on Golden Jubilee’s alleged lack of standing. “On a defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint based upon the plaintiff’s alleged lack of standing, the burden is on the moving defendant to establish, prima facie, the plaintiff’s lack of standing” (BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP v Rychik, 161 AD3d 924, 925 [2018]; see CPLR 3211 [a] [3]; Gobindram v Ruskin Moscou Faltischek, P.C., 175 AD3d 586, 591 [2019]). “To defeat a defendant’s motion, the plaintiff has no burden of establishing its standing as a matter of law; rather, the motion will be defeated if the plaintiff’s submissions raise a question of fact as to its standing” (Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams. v Vitellas, 131 AD3d 52, 60 [2015]). As relevant to this appeal, in actions where a plaintiff voluntarily commenced a bankruptcy proceeding prior to the instant action, “[t]he failure of a party to disclose a cause of action as an asset in a prior bankruptcy proceeding, which the party knew or should have known existed at the time of that proceeding, deprives him or her of ‘the legal capacity to sue subsequently on that cause of action’ ” (Potruch & Daab, LLC v Abraham, 97 AD3d 646, 647 [2012], quoting Whelan v Longo, 23 AD3d 459, 460 [2005], affd 7 NY3d 821 [2006]; see Nicke v Schwartzapfel Partners, P.C., 148 AD3d 1168, 1170 [2017]).

Here, Pacht’s submissions in support of his motion established that Golden Jubilee filed a bankruptcy petition in March 2016 which did not list the claim against Pacht as an asset, and that Golden Jubilee knew or should have known of the existence of its claim against Pacht prior to the filing of the bankruptcy petition (see Keegan v Moriarty-Morris, 153 AD3d 683, 684 [2017]; Positive Influence Fashion v City of New York, 2 AD3d 606, 606-607 [2003]). Accordingly, Pacht met his burden of establishing, prima facie, that Golden Jubilee lacked standing to bring this action against him (see Potruch & Daab, LLC v Abraham, 97 AD3d at 647). In opposition, however, the plaintiffs raised a question of fact as to Golden Jubilee’s standing, thus warranting denial of that branch of Pacht’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (3) to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as asserted against him based on Golden Jubilee’s alleged lack of standing (see Arch Bay Holdings, LLC-Series 2010B v Smith, 136 AD3d 719, 720 [2016]). The plaintiffs’ submissions established that Golden Jubilee’s bankruptcy petition was dismissed in January 2017. Thus, all property owned by Golden Jubilee, including the present claim against Pacht, revested with Golden Jubilee upon dismissal of the bankruptcy petition (see 11 USC §§ 349, 541 [a] [1]; Crawford v Franklin Credit Mgt. Corp., 758 F3d 473, 485 [2d Cir 2014]).

Richard A. Klass, Esq.
Your Court Street Lawyer

#CourtStreetLawyer #LegalMalpractice #bankruptcy

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

R. A. Klass
Your Court Street Lawyer

Next post
Previous post

On a motion for summary judgment, movant must show that there are no triable issues of fact.

Posted on August 31, 2021 by Richard Klass

Fricano v Law Offices of Tisha Adams, LLC, 194 AD3d 1016 [2d Dept 2021] serves as a reminder that, on a motion for summary judgment, the movant must show that there are no triable issues of fact. The court held:

‘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’ ” (Iannucci v. Kucker & Bruh, LLP, 161 A.D.3d 959, 960, 77 N.Y.S.3d 118, 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). It is the defendants’ burden, as the party moving for summary judgment, to demonstrate their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence conclusively establishing their defense to the action; merely pointing out gaps in the plaintiffs’ proof is not sufficient (see Bakcheva v. Law Off. of Stein & Assoc., 169 A.D.3d 624, 625, 93 N.Y.S.3d 388; Iannucci v. Kucker & Bruh, LLP, 161 A.D.3d at 960, 77 N.Y.S.3d 118). In determining a motion for summary judgment, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmovant (see Pearson v. Dix McBride, LLC, 63 A.D.3d 895, 895, 883 N.Y.S.2d 53). “The function of the court on a motion for summary judgment is not to resolve issues of fact or determine matters of credibility, but merely to determine whether such issues exist” (id. at 895, 883 N.Y.S.2d 53 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

Here, the defendants failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether their attorney-client relationship with Fricano included litigation of her insurance claim. The undated copy of an alleged retainer agreement between the defendants and Fricano, which is not signed by Adams, submitted in support of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, failed to establish, prima facie, that the defendants did not undertake to represent Fricano in litigation against Travco (see Terio v. Spodek, 63 A.D.3d at 721, 880 N.Y.S.2d 679). Further, while the defendants met their initial burden of demonstrating that they had no contract or relationship with Lakeside (see Moran v. Hurst, 32 A.D.3d 909, 911, 822 N.Y.S.2d 564), viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs’ submissions in opposition raised a triable issue of fact as to whether Adams’s words and actions created a contract and/or an attorney-client relationship between the defendants and both Fricano and Lakeside (see Biberaj v. Acocella, 120 A.D.3d 1285, 1287, 993 N.Y.S.2d 64; Terio v. Spodek, 63 A.D.3d at 721, 880 N.Y.S.2d 679).

The defendants also failed to establish, as a matter of law, that the plaintiffs could not have prevailed in an action against Travco (see Blumencranz v. Botter, 182 A.D.3d 568, 569, 120 N.Y.S.3d 829; see also 83 Willow, LLC v. Apollo, 187 A.D.3d 563, 564, 135 N.Y.S.3d 11). In support of their motion for summary judgment, the defendants did not submit a complete copy of the insurance policy, nor a copy of the underlying application for insurance coverage, and thus did not prove that Fricano misrepresented herself to Travco such that the plaintiffs would not have succeeded in a litigation disputing Travco’s denial of their claim. Moreover, even if there were no dispute as to whether Fricano made the alleged misrepresentation, the materiality of such alleged misrepresentation typically is a question of fact for the jury (see Liang v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 172 A.D.3d 696, 698, 99 N.Y.S.3d 449; Zilkha v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 287 A.D.2d 713, 714, 732 N.Y.S.2d 51).

Richard A. Klass, Esq.
Your Court Street Lawyer

#CourtStreetLawyer #LegalMalpractice #issuesoffact

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

R. A. Klass
Your Court Street Lawyer

Next post
Previous post

Court stayed the client’s action for legal malpractice pending arbitration.

Posted on August 25, 2021 by Richard Klass

In Protostorm, Inc. v Foley & Lardner LLP, 193 AD3d 486 [1st Dept 2021], the court stayed the client’s action for legal malpractice pending arbitration between the client and attorney:

“Where there is no substantial question whether a valid agreement [to arbitrate] was made or complied with, … the court shall direct the parties to arbitrate” and its order “shall operate to stay a pending … action” (CPLR 7503[a] [emphasis added]). Once a valid arbitration agreement is identified, an arbitration should only be stayed “when the sole matter sought to be submitted to arbitration is clearly beyond the arbitrator’s power” (Silverman v. Benmor Coats, Inc., 61 N.Y.2d 299, 309, 473 N.Y.S.2d 774, 461 N.E.2d 1261 [1984] [emphasis added]). Further, where “arbitrable and nonarbitrable claims are inextricably interwoven, the proper course is to stay judicial proceedings pending completion of the arbitration, particularly where … the determination of issues in arbitration may well dispose of nonarbitrable matters” (Cohen v. Ark Asset Holdings, Inc., 268 A.D.2d 285, 286, 701 N.Y.S.2d 385 [1st Dept. 2000]; see also Lake Harbor Advisors, LLC v. Settlement Servs. Arbitration and Mediation, Inc., 175 A.D.3d 479, 105 N.Y.S.3d 520 [2d Dept. 2019]; Monotube Pile Corp. v. Pile Foundation Constr. Corp., 269 A.D.2d 531, 703 N.Y.S.2d 234 [2d Dept. 2000]).

There is no dispute that there is a valid agreement between the parties to arbitrate any dispute regarding unpaid fees. Thus, the court must compel arbitration of defendants’ claim for unpaid fees and stay this action pending completion of the arbitration (CPLR 7503[a]). Moreover, because plaintiff’s nonarbitrable malpractice claim is inextricably intertwined with the arbitrable claim for unpaid fees, the proper course is to stay the action pending completion of the arbitration (see Cohen, 268 A.D.2d at 286, 701 N.Y.S.2d 385; Lake Harbor Advisors, LLC, 175 A.D.3d at 479, 105 N.Y.S.3d 520; Monotube Pile Corp., 269 A.D.2d at 531, 703 N.Y.S.2d 234).

To the extent plaintiff argues that it cannot be forced to arbitrate its malpractice claim because it did not explicitly agree to do so, both the First and Second Departments have clearly found that a nonarbitrable issue can be decided in an arbitration when it is inextricably intertwined with an arbitrable issue, particularly where, as here, the determination of the arbitrable unpaid fees claim may dispose of the nonarbitrable malpractice claim (see Cohen, 268 A.D.2d at 286, 701 N.Y.S.2d 385; Lake Harbor Advisors, LLC, 175 A.D.3d at 480, 105 N.Y.S.3d 520; Monotube Pile Corp., 269 A.D.2d at 531–532, 703 N.Y.S.2d 234).

Richard A. Klass, Esq.
Your Court Street Lawyer

#CourtStreetLawyer #LegalMalpractice #arbitrate

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

R. A. Klass
Your Court Street Lawyer

Next post
Previous post