Sabo v. Alan B. Brill, P.C., 7561-7561A, Index 100055/04 , SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT , 2006 NY Slip Op 221; Decided, January 12, 2006, This is a summary judgment dismissal of what appears to be a real estate transaction gone wrong. Both the attorney and the title company won dismissal.

Frost Line Refrigeration, Inc. v. Gastwirth, Mirsky & Stein, LLP, 2005-03137 , SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT , 2006 NY Slip Op 139; January 10, 2006, Decided. Here, plaintiff signed a consent to change attorney which started the statute of limitations running. Plaintiff’s argument that the statute started running upon later dismissal of the case does not convince the court nor the appellate court.

Izko Sportswear Co., Inc. v. Flaum, 2004-00279, 2004-01167, 2004-05260 , SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT , 2006 NY Slip Op 142; This is an interesting and unusual case of Judiciary Law 487, which is usually dismissed. The plaintiffs alleged that their attorney, who represented them in a chapter 11 bankruptcy misled the court, as well as having committed malpractice. The attorneys were eventually awarded legal fees in the Bankruptcy court. Because a court granted legal fees, the malpractice action was dismissed upon res judicata. After dismisal of the legal malpractice portion, the judiciary law portion remains.

Achtman v. Kirby, McInerney & Squire, LLP, 02 Civ. 9913 (JES) , UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK , Decided, January 5, 2006. This is the Broker’s case reported in yesterday’s Blog under “Legal Malpractice and Securities Litigation. This case ends with the plaintiff’s attorneys foreclosed from filing any further matters without express permission.