Thomas Puccio captured the world’s attention at the Abscam trial.  Think American Hustle.  He died in 2012.  A claim of legal malpractice, itself riddled with mistakes was recently dismissed.  Fundacion Fair Weather v Puccio    2014 NY Slip Op 32931(U)  November 13, 2014  Supreme Court, New York County  Docket Number: 65032/2013  Judge: Eileen A. Rakower.

"Plaintiff commenced this action on February 19, 2013, by summons with Notice. Plaintiff now  moves, by notice of motion dated October 2, 2014, for an Order, pursuant to CPLR § 3215, directing the entry of a default judgment as against Defendant on the basis of Defendant’s nonappearance in this action. In support, Plaintiff submits the attorney affirmation of Maurice W. Heller; the affidavit of merit of Domecq, dated April 24, 2014; the affidavits of service of Plaintiffs initiatory papers upon Defendant and upon the Law Offices of Thomas P. Puccio on May 30, 2013, by personal delivery to a person of suitable age and discretion at Defendant’s residence located at 61 Singing Oaks Drive, Weston, Connecticut; the affidavits of service of Plaintiffs initiatory papers upon Defendant
by first class mail, one for each of her capacities, enclosed in a post-paid wrapper, marked "Personal and Confidential" on May 14, 2013; the affidavit of additional mailing, pursuant to CPLR 3215(g)(3)(i), upon Defendant on November 6, 2013; a copy of the retainer agreement (the "Retainer Agreement"), dated August 11, 2008; a copy of a demand for arbitration, dated November 28, 2012; a copy of a letter,dated January 8, 2013, addressed to Decedent, referring Plaintiffs complaint to the Joint Committee on Fee Disputes and Conciliation; a copy of a NYCEF notification,
dated September 11, 2014. 

Here, Plaintiff concedes that Plaintiff filed the instant motion for default  judgment more than one year after default. Heller affirms that Defendant was in default as of July 17, 2013, and that Plaintiff filed the instant motion for a default 2 [* 2]judgment more than one year later, on October 2, 2014. However, Heller affirms that Plaintiff previously filed a timely application for default judgment with the Clerk, on May 6, 2014. Heller also affirms that, in November 2012, Plaintiff sought to arbitrate Plaintiffs claims before the Joint Committee on Fee Disputes and Conciliation of the New York County Lawyers Association (the "Comm ttee"), pursuant to an arbitration clause contained in the Retainer Agreement. Heller affirms that, by notice dated January 8, 2013, the Committee advised Decedent’s Law Office that the matter was referred to arbitration, and that the Law Office did
not respond to the Committee’s notices.

Here, even assuming that Plaintiff sufficiently demonstrates a reasonable excuse for its delay in filing the instant motion for a default judgment, Plaintiff does not provide sufficient allegations to establish the prima facie validity of its claim that Decedent is liable for $250,000 in damages resulting from Decedent’s alleged legal malpractice, breach of contract, or fraud. Domecq does not state that Decedent failed to perform any legal services on Domecq’s behalf, and Domecq’s allegation that Decedent failed to obtain a specific outcome is insufficient, without more, to sustain
a claim that Decedent failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession. Moreover, to the extent that, "the granting of an application for transfer to a dual citizen, such as Domecq,is far less likely than had [Domecq] been solely a citizen of Spain", Plaintiff does not provide facts sufficient to support an inference that Domecq’s application would have been granted "but for" Decedent’s purported negligence. In addition, the Retainer Agreement does not contain any express promise respecting Domecq or Domecq’s transfer. Indeed, the Retainer Agreement, which is addressed to "Fairboum, c/o Christina Domecq," and signed by Christina Domecq on behalf of "Fairboum", does not contain any reference whatsoever to Plaintiff, Domecq, the IPTP, or the IPTU. Plaintiff does not allege with particularity facts sufficient to establish the prima facie validity of Plaintiffs claim that Decedent
fraudulently induced Plaintiff to enter into the Retainer Agreement, and Domecq’s allegation that Decedent did not intend to perform under the Retainer Agreement is not enough to give rise to a cause of action for fraud that is distinct from Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim.
 

Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to provide the reviewing Court with sufficient allegations to establish a basis for Plaintiff’s legal malpractice, breach of contract, or fraudulent inducement claims. "