Board of Mgrs. of the Bay Club v Borah, Goldstein, Altschuler, Schwartz & Nahins, P.C. ; 2010 NY Slip Op 52129(U) ; Decided on December 13, 2010 ; Supreme Court, Queens County ; Markey, J. is a legal malpractice case against one of the best known and best regarded landlord law firms in NY.  Borah, Goldstein represents landlords in all phases of L&T work, and can be seen every day in the commercial L&T parts, playing the elephant in the room.  Nevertheless, this complaint says that they made a simple mistake, which cost the client extra legal fees.  Is this allegation enough for a Legal Malpractice case?  Answer: Yes.
 

"Among the services that Borah Goldstein did on behalf of the Bay Club Board was the preparation and filing of notice of a lien for unpaid common charges pursuant to section 339 of the Condominium Act. The complaint in this action alleges that the Borah Goldstein firm was negligent in drafting and filing the notice of lien, which failed to include a verification of the information set forth therein. The complaint further alleges that as a result of this negligence the Bay Club board sustained damages by requiring it to incur more litigation expenses in defending the validity of the lien."

"The defendant argues that the plaintiff did not state a claim for malpractice as the plaintiff cannot establish the essential "but for" element in a legal malpractice action, arguing that there was no proof of damages as a result of the alleged malpractice. However, a plaintiff can recover in a legal malpractice action even if it is successful in the underlying action if it incurred increased expenses due to the attorney’s negligence in the handling of the action (see, DePinto v Rosenthal & Curry, 237 AD2d 482 [2nd Dept. 1997]). Here, the plaintiff sufficiently alleged that it has sustained ascertainable damages as a consequence of increased litigation expenses that it incurred attributable to the unverified lien. Plaintiff argues that it has stated a cause of action for legal malpractice. "