Attorneys who defend doctors in Office of Professional Medical Conduct proceedings work in a complex rule-driven atmosphere.  Frequently negative outcomes lead to legal malpractice cases.  In Manouel v Dembin  2022 NY Slip Op 00725 Decided on February 03, 2022
Appellate Division, First Department the case ended with summary judgment.

“Plaintiff fails to articulate any persuasive basis to disturb the motion court’s order. Although defendant Ralph Erbaio moved for summary judgment more than 120 days after the note of issue was filed, his motion was timely in light of the pandemic-related Executive Orders tolling motion deadlines (CPLR 3212[a]; Executive Order Nos. 202.8, 202.67 [9 NYCRR 8.202.8, 8.202.67]). The motion court applied the proper standard of care to defendants in this legal malpractice action (see Bassim v Halliday, 234 AD2d 628 [3d Dept 1996], appeal dismissed 89 NY2d 1001 [1997]; see generally Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442 [2007]). The record establishes, as a matter of law, that defendants did not have time to pre-clear the consent agreement between plaintiff and New York State Office of Professional Medical Conduct (OMPC) with the New York State Office of Medicaid Inspector General (OMIG). Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, his expert’s conclusory affidavit failed to raise an issue of fact.

In view of the foregoing, we do not reach plaintiff’s argument regarding his tax returns, and we decline to consider any of the arguments plaintiff raises for the first time in his reply brief.”