1. Fontaine v. Matthews, 7654-7654A , SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT , 2006 NY Slip Op 388; January 24, 2006, Decided,It appears that the underlying federal action was brought by plaintiff, a seaman, against the owner of his ship [**2] to recover for personal injuries sustained in an assault by a fellow crewman. Although defendant represented plaintiff throughout the course of the pretrial proceedings in the federal action, and agreed to continue to represent plaintiff after suffering a stroke, as indicated in the transcript of the pretrial hearing before the magistrate and by his meaningful participation in the deposition of the ship’s medical expert, he failed to appear at the trial. This forced plaintiff and defendant’s co-counsel, enlisted by defendant after his stroke, to go to trial without defendant present.
2. Mahler v. Torres, 2005-03596 , SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT , 2006 NY Slip Op 487; January 24, 2006, Decided, The compliance conference order dated May 17, 2004, directing the plaintiff to serve and file a note of issue by September 13, 2004, and warning that the failure to comply would result in dismissal, had the same effect as a valid 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216. Here, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that his cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice was meritorious.
3. Braun v. Rosenblum, 2005-00565 , SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT , 2006 NY Slip Op 467; January 24, 2006, Decided, “Although generally a defendant attorney is liable to the plaintiff for the claim he would have recovered in the dismissed suit . . . punitive damages are not included in this general claim theory. Thus, the plaintiffs may not recover in the instant legal malpractice action for any punitive damages that were [*2] “lost” when the underlying personal injury action was dismissed.”
4. Hayes v. Wilson, 2004-09558, 2005-01054 , SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT , 2006 NY Slip Op 336; “On a motion to dismiss a cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court must accept the factual allegations of the complaint as true and accord the plaintiff all favorable inferences which may be drawn therefrom.Under this standard, the plaintiff’s complaint failed to sufficiently plead a cause of action against the defendant. However, the complaint sufficiently pleaded a cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice against the second defendant”
5. Richter v. Davidson & Cohen, P.C., 2004-05729, Index No. 10115/04 , SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT , 2006 NY Slip Op 343; Client was not collaterally estopped from raising the issue of whether the attorney had actual authority to settle.