Attorneys regularly drop in and out of cases, and for the most part, there is no particular notice taken of the event.  Here, in Soussis v Lazer, Aptheker, Rosella & Yedid, P.C. ; 2009 NY Slip Op 07823 ; Decided on October 27, 2009 ; Appellate Division, Second Department  we see a wholly different result.  In Soussis,  Plaintiff hired the target defendants to arbitrate over unpaid commissions, which are said to have arisen from employment discrimination.  Target attorneys did not raise the discrimination claim.  Benjamin Vinar to sue the attorneys; at the same time he stepped in and settled the arbitration case targets had started.  In turn, target attorneys bring a third-party action against Vinar.  Vinar does not succeed on summary judgment, and is held in the case for a portion of the third party claims.

"The plaintiff retained the defendant law firm, Lazer, Aptheker, Rosella & Yedid, P.C. (hereinafter the Lazer firm), in connection with her claims for unpaid commissions and unreimbursed expenses, alleging employment discrimination against her former employer, Stephens, Inc. (hereinafter Stephens), a member of the New York Stock Exchange.""It is undisputed that Goidell failed to bring a federal or state action against Stephens on the plaintiff’s behalf before the statute of limitations applicable to the employment discrimination claim expired. The plaintiff retained the third-party defendant Benjamin Vinar to commence the instant action against the Lazer firm, Goidell, and two partners in the firm, David Lazer and Ralph A. Rosella, to recover damages for legal malpractice. While represented by Vinar, the plaintiff settled her arbitration claims against Stephens."

"Subsequently, the Lazer firm, David Lazer, and Rosella (hereinafter together the Lazer defendants) impleaded Vinar, asserting claims for contribution and/or indemnification. They alleged that [*2]Vinar was negligent in settling the plaintiff’s arbitration claims. Specifically, they alleged that Vinar was negligent in failing to seek leave to amend the plaintiff’s statement of claim in the arbitration proceeding to add the employment discrimination claim. They also alleged that Vinar was negligent in failing to seek reformation of the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., Form U-5 (hereinafter the U-5), provided by the plaintiff’s employer to remove an allegedly false or defamatory statement contained therein regarding the reason for the termination of her employment. "

"The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of Vinar’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing so much of the third-party complaint as asserted claims for contribution and indemnification. Contrary to Vinar’s contention, the Lazer defendants are entitled to seek contribution or indemnification from him, as a subsequently retained attorney, to the extent his alleged negligence in settling the plaintiff’s arbitration claims may have contributed to or aggravated her injuries (see Schauer v Joyce, 54 NY2d 1, 3-6; Alfaro v Schwartz, 233 AD2d 281, 281-282; Herkrath v Gaffin & Mayo, 192 AD2d 487, 488).

Furthermore, in opposition to Vinar’s prima facie showing on the issue of his failure to seek reformation of the U-5, the plaintiff’s deposition testimony and the Lazer defendants’ expert affidavit were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Vinar was negligent in failing to seek reformation and, if so, whether the plaintiff suffered a greater loss of future earnings than she would have had the U-5 been reformed to remove the damaging information regarding the reason for her termination from Stephens.