1. Solon v. Tormey, 1542 CA 04-02353 , SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FOURTH DEPARTMENT , 2006 NY Slip Op 891; February 3, 2006, Decided,
Question: Did the plaintiff investigate this case at all? Plaintiff accuses attorney of conversion of 400,000 shares of stock in a gas corporation that had been entrusted to him to hold for a decedent. The attorney, however, delivered the shares to a Federal District Court judge for exchange pursuant to a settlement of decedent’s pre-death case. The attorney, having done exactly what the stipulation required, and having actually delivered the stock to a Federal Judge was nevertheless sued. Case dismissed.
2. Edwards v. Siegel, Kelleher & Kahn & Mark G. Hirschorn, 139 CA 05-01489 , SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FOURTH DEPARTMENT February 3, 2006,6, Entered, Here is a highly unusual case for two reasons. First, it appears that plaintiff filed bankruptcy, and while unstated, apparently did not obtain permission from the trustee to bring this action; second, plaintiff prevails on arguments made for the first time on appeal, namely that defendants did not move to dismiss for lack of capacity. A very strange decision, and the legal malpractice case continues.
3.SEROVA v. TEPLEN, No. 05 CIV. 6748 (HB), UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, 2006 U.S. Dist. February 16, 2006, Decided Here is a Federal legal malpractice case arising from immigration representation. Plaintiff is a Russian national who was induced to invest about a million dollars in hopes of obtaining a treaty investor visa. The quest failed. The defendant attorney induced plaintiff to invest in a “friend’s” company, and everything went wrong. This case discusses punitive damages, Judiciary Law section 487 and several other interesting issues.
4. RUBENS v. ROY L. MASON & MORGAN SHELSBY CARLO DOWNS & EVERTON, 01 Civ. 5004 (DC), UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, 2006 U.S. Dist. February 15, 2006, Decided, February 15, 2006, Filed. Motion for summary judgment in a case where defendant attorneys took over a very complex Dalkon Shield case from predecessor attorneys just weeks before an arbitration. The claim was for a Dalkon shield inserted 25 years prior and removed 12 years prior, and involved a host of interesting issues.
5. Achtman v. Kirby, McInerney & Squire, LLP, 02 Civ. 9913 (JES) , UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK , 404 F. Supp. 2d 540; 2005 U.S. Dist. December 12, 2005, Decided,
In a class action, involving legal malpractice the District court enforced an injunction order prohibiting contact of class members.