Plaintiff hired attorney to represent him in a mediation with Morgan Stanley in 2014. Plaintiff settled on a $ 267K package, and then several years later sued his attorney. Reches v Sack & Sack, LLP 2018 NY Slip Op 31643(U) June 28, 2018 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: 511057/2017 Judge: Dawn M. Jimenez-Salta is the story of how that claim got derailed, and then buried.
“This action originated from Defendant Sack’s representation of PlaintiffReches in an underlying
mediation with Plaintiffs employer, Morgan Stanley (“Morgan Stanley”) on June 18, 2014. Pursuant to that process, Plaintiff accepted a $267,000.00 (Two Hundred Sixty Seven Thousand Dollars) settlement offer in connection with an employment discrimination complaint which he filed against his former employer, Morgan Stanley. Both Plaintiff and a representative from Morgan Stanley executed the Settlement Agreement (“Settlement”) and General Release on June 30, 2014 [Plaintiff 1; Plaintiff 2 Memorandum of Law, Exh. A; Defendant 3,, Exhs A-C; Plaintiff 4, Exhs. A-CJ. ·
Because he was unhappy with the amount of the Settlement which he accepted, Plaintiff filed a
Complaint, dated June 5, 2017 against Defendant Sacks, approximately three years later. Plaintiff alleged eleven (11) causes of action against Defendant Sacks. Ten (10) causes of action were for legal malpractice and one cause of action was for intentional infliction of emotional distress.’ Defendant moved on August 4, 2017 to dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint in its entirety (the “Motion to Dismiss”) pursuant to CPLR 321 l(a)(7) for failure to state a claim as well as pursuant to CPLR 321 l(a)(J)
because the claim was barred by documentary evidence’.”
“When this Court heard oral argument from the parties on the Motion to Dismiss on November 15, 2017, it reserved its decision. In an Order (the “Dismissal Order”), dated February 23, 2018, this Court granted the Motion to Dismiss, having determined that Plaintiffs Complaint “fails to adequately plead specific factual allegations showing that, but for Defendant’s alleged negligence, Plaintiff would have obtained a more favorable outcome … in the mediation.” This Court found that Plaintiffs allegations that he could have obtained a more favorable outcome in the mediation were “conclusory and speculative”. This Court noted that “Piaintiff was not under economic duress,” that the “mediation was voluntary,” and “that he could have stopped at any time.” [Plaintiff l; Plaintiff2 Memorandum of Law, Exh. A; Defendant 3,, Exhs A-C; Plaintiff 4, Exhs. A-C]. ”
“Due to Plaintiffs failure to show that this Court overlooked or misapprehended any matters of fact or law or for some reason mistakenly arrived at its earlier decision, this.Court denies plaintiff Reches’ motion to reargue Defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(7) for failure to state a claim and CPLR 321 J(a)(J) because the claim is barred by documentary evidence. Plaintiffs motion is an attempt to reargue his prior positions which were duly considered and previously rejected by this Court. This Court carefully considered Plaintiffs identical arguments before it issued its comprehensive Dismissal Order. Because it addressed all of Plaintiffs unchanged concerns, Plaintiffs arguments remain unavailing. Therefore, this Court adheres to its original rulings in its Decision/Order, dated February 23, 2018. See Diorio v. City of New York, supra: Ebasco Construction, Inc., v. AMS Construction Co., Inc., supra; Foley v. Roche, supra: Giovannioel/o
v. Carolina Wholesale Office Mach., Co., supra [Plaintiff I; Plaintiff2 Memorandum of Law, Exh. A;
Defendant 3,, Exhs A-C; Plaintiff 4, Exhs. A-CJ. ”