Law Firm of Alexander D. Tripp, P.C. v Fiorilla
2020 NY Slip Op 34362(U) December 31, 2020 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 654991/2019 Judge: Lucy Billings is a factual mess.  What is clear, is that the motion for summary judgment was unopposed and quickly granted.

“The malpractice that defendant claims occurred November 9, 2017, when his attorney in the Citigroup Global Markets proceeding agreed with Citigroup Global Markets’ attorney that its motion for sanctions raised no factual issues, obviating the need for an evidentiary hearing. Defendant claims that the waiver of an evidentiary hearing was malpractice, because he did raise factual issues that would have been determined in his favor at a hearing, Sejfuloski v. Michelstein & Assoc., PLLC, 137 A.D.2d 549, 549-50 (1st Dep’t 2016); Tenasca Delgado v. Bretz &
Coven, LLP, 109 A.D.3d 38, 43-44 (1st Dep’t 2013), and would have reduced the $213,832.50 award of sanctions, attorneys’ fees, and expenses against him. Baram v. Person, 153 A.D.3d 1183, 1183 (1st Dep’t 2017); Caso v. Miranda Sambursky Sloane Sklarin Vereniotis LLP, 150 A.D.3d 422, 423 (1st Dep’t 2017) i O’Neal v. Muchnick Golieb & Golieb, P.C., 149 A.D.3d 636, 636 (1st Dep’t 2017); Rubin v. Duncan, Fish & Vogel. L.L.P., 148 A.D.3d 432, 433
(1st Dep’t 2017). The absence of a continuing attorney-client relationship between plaintiff and defendant when this alleged malpractice occurred, however, bars defendant’s claim for legal malpractice against plaintiff. Seaman v. Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP, 176 A.D.3d 538, 538-39 (1st Dep’t 2019) i Barrett v. Goldstein, 161 A.D.3d 472, 473 (1st Dep’t 2018); Cabrera v. Collazo, 115 A.D.3d 147, 153 (1st Dep’t 2014); Waggoner v. Caruso, 68 A.D.3d 1, 5 (1st Dep’t 2009), aff’d, 14 N.Y.3d 874 (2010).”