Xiuwen Qi v Hang & Assoc., PLLC 2025 NY Slip Op 31308(U) April 16, 2025 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 151821/2023 Judge: Mary V. Rosado is a discussion of “ripeness” and when a legal malpractice case can or cannot be proven.

“Upon the foregoing documents, and after a final submission date of February 14, 2025,
Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs Hang & Associates, PLLC, Jian Hang, Jiajing Fan, Shan Zhu,
and Zhangyuxi Wang (collectively “Third-Party Plaintiffs”) motion for seeking leave to renew
partially this Court’s Decision and Order dated September 3, 2024 is denied, without prejudice.”

“Third-Party Plaintiffs seek leave to renew the portion of this Court’s Decision and Order
dismissing their contribution claim asserted against Third-Party Defendants Troy Law PLLC, John
Troy, Tiffany Troy, and Aaron Schweitzer (“Third-Party Defendants”). Third-Party Plaintiffs are being sued by Plaintiff for legal malpractice for allowing his wage and hour dispute to be dismissed
based on their multiple administrative defaults of Court orders (Qi v Famous Sichuan New York
Inc., Index No. 656826/2019 [the “2019 Action”]). Third Party Plaintiffs filed a contribution claim
against Third-Party Defendants, who are representing Plaintiff in a new wage and hour case, which
attempted to restore some of the claims administratively dismissed in the 2019 Action (Qi v
Famous Sichuan New York Inc., et al., 650984/2022 [the “2022 Action”]). In the 2022 Action,
some of Plaintiff’s claims were dismissed based on the statute of limitations after Third-Party
Defendants failed to raise Governor Cuomo’s Executive Orders tolling the statute of limitations
(“Covid-19 toll”) as a defense. Third-Party Plaintiffs theory of contribution is that some of the
damages Plaintiff is seeking from them could have been avoided had Third-Party Defendants
raised the Covid-19 toll.”

“The Court found the contribution claim as it relates to Third-Party Defendants alleged
failure to raise the Covid-19 toll premature and speculative because remedies which could
eliminate the alleged damages remained sub Judice or had not yet been exhausted. A review of the
2022 Action’s docket shows that remains the case: Third-Party Defendants have filed a notice of
appeal regarding the denial of their motion to renew, and there is now sub Judice a motion to
reargue. 1 Just as when the Court originally dismissed the Third-Party Complaint, there are still
unresolved remedies which may eliminate the alleged damages sought in the third-party
contribution claim. Therefore, leave to renew is denied (see Grace v Law, 24 NY3d 203, 210
[2014] [legal malpractice actions premature prior to appellate court or underlying trial court being
given opportunity to rectify unfavorable result]). The denial is without prejudice, as the contribution claim may be reasserted depending on the outcome of the motion to reargue and/or notice of appeal”