1. Hartman v Morganstern, 2004-10505, (Index No. 7337/04), SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2006 NY Slip Op 2497; April 4, 2006, Decided, This legal malpractice action was dismssed on documentary evidence. One cause of action came from a criminal conviction, but defendants showed that the Federal judge would have sentenced plaintiff the same whether attorney intervened or not. In the second: “The complaint alleged that the defendants committed legal malpractice while representing the plaintiff in two matters, one civil and the other criminal. In the civil matter, the complaint alleged that the defendants committed legal malpractice by failing to request that a lower Federal interest rate be applied to a Federal judgment docketed in the New York State Supreme Court, thereby causing the plaintiff to pay $ 55,000 in excessive interest. However, there is [**4] no case law or statute requiring a New York State court to apply the Federal interest rate as opposed to the higher New York Sate interest rate in this situation. Additionally, the levy issued by the judgment creditor was neither illegal nor subject to dismissal.”

2. Edelweiss (USA) Inc. v. Vengroff Williams & Assoc., Inc., 2004-10357, (Index No. 6592/03) , SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT , 2006 NY Slip Op 2329; In a complicated poultry sale to Russia, three shiploads of chickens were sent to Russia, and not paid for. Attorney collection agency and later attorney were hired to sue. Questions of the federal Carriage of Goods By Sea Act and statutes of limitation were raised. Defendants successfully reversed summary judgment when “they raised triable issues of fact with respect to whether the disputed bills of lading were nonnegotiable within the meaning of the federal Pomerene Bills of Lading Act (49 USC § 80101 et seq.) (see 49 USC § 80103[b][1]; see also 46 USC Appx § 1303[4]), and thus whether OOCLL was obligated to deliver and release the poultry to the Russian purchaser irrespective of whether that purchaser presented and surrendered documents of title (see 49 USC § 80110[a],[b][2]).”

3. Zorn v. Gilbert, 2005-04727, (Index No. 8768/01) , SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT , 2006 NY Slip Op 2360; This case again tells us that the statute of limitations usually starts to run with the judgment of divorce. Here, pro-se attorney prevails on appeal.

4. Fasanella v. Levy, 2004-02433 (Index No. 15277/01) , SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT , 2006 NY Slip Op 2161; The AD gives no details about this case, but tells us that plaintiff failed to raise triable issues of fact in a motion for summary judgment.

5. Bleeg-Smith v. Michael, 299 CA 05-02305 , SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FOURTH DEPARTMENT , 2006 NY Slip Op 2030; 2006 No details here either. Defendant loses Motion for summary judgment in Supreme Court, and on appeal, for the same unstated reasons.

6. Silberman & Silberman, P.C. v. First Refm. Episcopal Church, No. 570400/05 , SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT , 2006 NY Slip Op 50468U;Account stated claim for attorney fees “so intertwined” with legal malpractice claim that the case must go to trial/

7. Richardson v. Lindenbaum & Young, 2814/05 , SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, KINGS COUNTY , 2006 NY Slip Op 50453U; One of several sequenial attorneys in a legal malpractice action is dismissed.