Chanos v Tarter, Krinsky & Drogin LLP 2025 NY Slip Op 33729(U) September 15, 2025 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 151797/2022 Judge: Lynn R. Kotler deals with a legal malpractice case in which an attorney was deposed on behalf of himself as well as on behalf of the firm. Plaintiff then unsuccessfully sought a further deposition of the firm.

“This is an action for attorney malpractice based upon the failure of Michael Grudberg to serve a complaint in an action filed against Chanos’ ex-husband in a New York County action with Index Number #151678/2014 (the “Related Action”). On February 26, 2014, Grudberg, at the time employed by Ballard, filed a Summons with Notice for the Related Action. On March 20, 2014, Chanos’ ex husband filed a Notice of Appearance and Demand for Complaint. The time to serve was extended by stipulation to May 21, 2014, however, no complaint was served by that date. In 2017, Grudberg left Ballard and joined Tarter, and Tarter began representing Chanos.”

“On March 20, 2024, Grudberg was deposed in the instant action as an individual and on behalf of Tarter. Chanos contends she sought information at the deposition relating to the firm’s practice with respect to management and supervision of their litigators and cases. Chanos argues that at Grudberg’s deposition he “made clear that he lacked the knowledge regarding the firm’s essential procedures and policies, including his inability to describe the firm’s statute of limitations monitoring system, new client intake protocols, and case transition and supervisory procedures.”

“When making a motion to take additional depositions, the moving party must make “a ‘detailed showing’ of the necessity for taking additional depositions, in that [they] demonstrated that the employees already deposed had insufficient information and there was a substantial likelihood that those sought to be deposed possess information necessary and material to the prosecution of the case” (Alexopoulos v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 37 AD3d 232, 233 [1st Dept 2007]). Chanos argues that she has met her burden of showing that a further deposition of Tarter is warranted, as Grudberg did not have the requisite knowledge to answer questions related to Tarter’s internal monitoring systems. Defendants argue that Chanos failed to ask questions at the deposition related to this information, and that the information is not material and necessary to the legal malpractice claim. Here, Chanos has failed to make a showing that Grudberg had insufficient information regarding the information sought. While Chanos claims that Grudberg had no knowledge of the information sought, she failed to reference a single line in the deposition where Grudberg was asked information related to any systems in place at Tarter. Because Chanos has failed to show that Grudberg had insufficient information based on the questions posed at his deposition, the motion is denied. Chanos also argues that the deposition is necessary to rebut Defendants new defense raised after the deposition of Grudberg that there was no malpractice because the action could have been salvaged through refiling as an action on judgment. Defendants argue that this argument was raised as an affirmative defense in their answer. The Court agrees with Defendants that Chanos was on notice, based on the affirmative defenses raised, that Defendants would defend the case in part based on Chanos and her current counsel’s failure to pursue timely legal claims, and failed to ask Grudberg any questions related to the systems in place at the March 20, 2024 deposition.”