1. Amcan Holdings, Inc. v. Torys LLP,</em> 8637N, Index 115392/04, 590097/05 , SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT , 2006 NY Slip Op 6308;

This US and Canadian legal malpractice case, reported by us much earlier in its life, has been fought on two fronts, Essex County and New York County. The claim is that Tory’s , a Canadian law firm, helped to damage plaintiffs through a conflict of interest. Plaintiffs claim that Torys chose to favor a big bank rather than them, and caused multi-millions in damage. Plaintiff Grey, himeslf an attorney, was jailed for contempt as part of this case. “In the absence of demonstrated [**8] prejudice to plaintiffs, it was an abuse of discretion to deny consolidation” (Raboy v McCrory Corp., 210 A.D.2d 145, 147, 621 N.Y.S.2d 14 [1994]). The actions should thus be consolidated under the New York County index number, since “Absent exceptional circumstances involving the convenience of material witnesses, the venue of a consolidated action should be the county in which the first action was commenced” (Teitelbaum, 6 AD3d at 255).” Now the matter is consolidated in New York County. Very interesting legal malpractice case, and may well end in a multi-million dollar result.

2. Simmons v. Edelstein, 2004-10854, 2004-10856, (Index No. 18168/03) , SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT , 2006 NY Slip Op 6228; TYhis opinion tells us that the 3211[a][7] dismissal was affirmed. Apparently plaintiff did not convince the panel that the mistake was a proximate cause of the damage.However, no information is given in the decision. “To survive dismissal, the complaint must show that, but for counsel’s alleged malpractice, the plaintiff would not have sustained some actual ascertainable damages (see Pellegrino v File, 291 A.D.2d 60, 63, 738 N.Y.S.2d 320). The Supreme Court properly determined that the plaintiff failed to allege a cognizable cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice (see Menicucci Villa & Assoc., PLLC v Pickett, 24 A.D.3d 734, 805 N.Y.S.2d 853; Edwards v Haas, supra).”

3. Brady v. Bisogno & Meyerson, 2005-04314, (Index No. 32094/02) , SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT , 2006 NY Slip Op 6144; “In the instant case, the affidavit of the defendants’ expert established, prima facie, that the defendants followed the accepted and customary practices of the legal profession in determining which party controlled or maintained the parking lot where the injured plaintiff fell (see generally Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562, 404 N.E.2d 718, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595). The affidavit of the plaintiffs’ expert failed to rebut this, and stated only in [**3] conclusory fashion that the defendants should have been able to determine that the subject property was controlled by a third party. HN3Conclusory expert opinions are insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Schrader v Sunnyside Corp., 297 A.D.2d 369, 371, 747 N.Y.S.2d 26). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied the plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.” This matter was brought by Julien & Schlesinger, which is not a customary legal malpractice player. Apparently the wrong party was sued in a trip and fall.

4. Mega Group, Inc. v. Pechenik & Curro, P.C., 98694 , SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, THIRD DEPARTMENT , 2006 NY Slip Op 6108; ). Fact laden decision based upon a plethora of prior litigation between the parties. “Here, an attorney-client relationship existed between Mega and the attorneys, and Mega’s pleadings contain sufficient facts to support the conclusion that the attorneys were negligent in defending Mega in the Halton action. As Supreme Court properly found, however, Mega has failed to state facts sufficient to find that it has suffered any actual and ascertainable damages.

First, Mega cannot claim any disadvantage in negotiating the sale by virtue of the attorneys’ alleged negligence in connection with the Halton action because neither Mega nor MPL claims any knowledge that Halton had in fact made cross claims against Mega when the sale took place (see Busino v Meachem, supra at 608). Further, although a default judgment was entered against Mega in the Halton action, it is clear from the record that Mega did not pay that judgment and the judgment has now been satisfied;”

Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Andrew Lavoott Bluestone

Andrew Lavoott Bluestone has been an attorney for 40 years, with a career that spans criminal prosecution, civil litigation and appellate litigation. Mr. Bluestone became an Assistant District Attorney in Kings County in 1978, entered private practice in 1984 and in 1989 opened…

Andrew Lavoott Bluestone has been an attorney for 40 years, with a career that spans criminal prosecution, civil litigation and appellate litigation. Mr. Bluestone became an Assistant District Attorney in Kings County in 1978, entered private practice in 1984 and in 1989 opened his private law office and took his first legal malpractice case.

Since 1989, Bluestone has become a leader in the New York Plaintiff’s Legal Malpractice bar, handling a wide array of plaintiff’s legal malpractice cases arising from catastrophic personal injury, contracts, patents, commercial litigation, securities, matrimonial and custody issues, medical malpractice, insurance, product liability, real estate, landlord-tenant, foreclosures and has defended attorneys in a limited number of legal malpractice cases.

Bluestone also took an academic role in field, publishing the New York Attorney Malpractice Report from 2002-2004.  He started the “New York Attorney Malpractice Blog” in 2004, where he has published more than 4500 entries.

Mr. Bluestone has written 38 scholarly peer-reviewed articles concerning legal malpractice, many in the Outside Counsel column of the New York Law Journal. He has appeared as an Expert witness in multiple legal malpractice litigations.

Mr. Bluestone is an adjunct professor of law at St. John’s University College of Law, teaching Legal Malpractice.  Mr. Bluestone has argued legal malpractice cases in the Second Circuit, in the New York State Court of Appeals, each of the four New York Appellate Divisions, in all four of  the U.S. District Courts of New York and in Supreme Courts all over the state.  He has also been admitted pro haec vice in the states of Connecticut, New Jersey and Florida and was formally admitted to the US District Court of Connecticut and to its Bankruptcy Court all for legal malpractice matters. He has been retained by U.S. Trustees in legal malpractice cases from Bankruptcy Courts, and has represented municipalities, insurance companies, hedge funds, communications companies and international manufacturing firms. Mr. Bluestone regularly lectures in CLEs on legal malpractice.

Based upon his professional experience Bluestone was named a Diplomate and was Board Certified by the American Board of Professional Liability Attorneys in 2008 in Legal Malpractice. He remains Board Certified.  He was admitted to The Best Lawyers in America from 2012-2019.  He has been featured in Who’s Who in Law since 1993.

In the last years, Mr. Bluestone has been featured for two particularly noteworthy legal malpractice cases.  The first was a settlement of an $11.9 million dollar default legal malpractice case of Yeo v. Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman which was reported in the NYLJ on August 15, 2016. Most recently, Mr. Bluestone obtained a rare plaintiff’s verdict in a legal malpractice case on behalf of the City of White Plains v. Joseph Maria, reported in the NYLJ on February 14, 2017. It was the sole legal malpractice jury verdict in the State of New York for 2017.

Bluestone has been at the forefront of the development of legal malpractice principles and has contributed case law decisions, writing and lecturing which have been recognized by his peers.  He is regularly mentioned in academic writing, and his past cases are often cited in current legal malpractice decisions. He is recognized for his ample writings on Judiciary Law § 487, a 850 year old statute deriving from England which relates to attorney deceit.