4th Department Rejects a Per Se Rule
Buffalo and Rochester: When Plaintiff settles the underlying action, or fails to take an appeal on a dismissal, may he still commence a legal malpractice case? In Grace v Law 2013 NY Slip Op 05383 [108 AD3d 1173] July 19, 2013 Appellate Division, Fourth Department
"We reject defendants' invitation to extend the ruling in Rupert to a per se rule that a party who voluntarily discontinues an underlying action and forgoes an appeal thereby abandons his or her right to pursue a claim for legal malpractice. Indeed, we noted in Rupert that, in determining that the court erred in granting the defendants' cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in the context of a prior appeal (Rupert v Gates & Adams, P.C., 48 AD3d 1221 ), we "necessarily rejected the very premise upon which the court denied the instant motion for summary judgment," i.e., that "this legal malpractice action is barred by [the] plaintiff's failure to perfect an appeal from the judgment in the matrimonial action" (83 AD3d at 1395).
Although the precise question presented herein appears to be an issue of first impression in New York, we note that several of our sister states have rejected the per se rule advanced by defendants herein (see e.g. MB Indus., LLC v CNA Ins. Co., 74 So 3d 1173, 1176 ; Hewitt v Allen, 118 Nev 216, 217-218, 43 P3d 345, 345-346 ; Eastman v Flor-Ohio, Ltd., 744 So 2d 499, 502-504 ; Segall v Segall, 632 So 2d 76, 78 ). As has been noted, such a rule would force parties to prosecute potentially meritless appeals to their judicial conclusion in order to preserve their right to commence a malpractice action, thereby increasing the costs of litigation and overburdening the court system (see Eastman, 744 So 2d at 504). The additional time spent to pursue an unlikely appellate remedy could also result in expiration of the statute of limitations on the legal malpractice claim (see MB Indus., 74 So 3d at 1181). Further, requiring parties to exhaust the appellate process prior to commencing a legal malpractice action would discourage settlements and potentially conflict with an injured party's duty to mitigate damages (see Crestwood Cove Apts. Bus. Trust v Turner, 164 P3d 1247, 1254 ; Eastman, 744 So 2d at 504).