Patel v Rose Law Group PLLC 2025 NY Slip Op 52027(U) Decided on November 19, 2025
Supreme Court, New York County Lebovits, J. demonstrates where the central locus of almost all legal malpractice claims lies: in the “but for” causation analysis. Here, plaintiffs pointed out discovery shortcomings and missing arguments. That, however, was insufficient.
“Plaintiff retained defendants to pursue employment-discrimination and retaliation claims in Supreme Court against his employer, Macy’s Inc. (NYSCEF No. 1 at ¶ 5.) In that action, Macy’s moved to compel arbitration. Supreme Court granted the motion. (See Patel v Macys Inc., 2017 WL 4574887, *2 [Sup Ct, NY County 2017, Kotler J.].) Plaintiff—represented by defendants—appealed the Supreme Court decision. The appeal was unsuccessful. (See Patel v Macys Inc., 168 AD3d 632, 632 [1st Dept 2019].) The matter then went to arbitration.
The arbitrator dismissed plaintiff’s claims. The arbitrator concluded that plaintiff “did not carry his burden” of demonstrating discrimination based on race or national origin; retaliation; or aider and abettor liability by plaintiff’s individual supervisors at Macy’s. (NYSCEF No. 6 at 1, 31-31 [arbitrator’s November 2021 decision].)
After arbitration, plaintiff (represented by different counsel and not defendants) petitioned to vacate the arbitration award. (NYSCEF No. 7.) Supreme Court denied the petition. (See Patel v Macy’s, Inc., 2022 WL 6353294, *3 [Sup Ct, NY County 2022, Kotler, J.].) The First Department affirmed. (See Matter of Patel v Macy’s Inc., 227 AD3d 551, 551 [1st Dept 2024].)
Plaintiff now brings this action against defendants. Plaintiff asserts claims for malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment arising from defendants’ alleged conduct during the arbitration proceeding. Plaintiff also seeks relief under Judiciary Law § 487.
Defendants move under CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7) to dismiss the complaint. The motion is granted under CPLR 3211 (a) (7).”
“Plaintiff alleges that defendants committed malpractice during the arbitration proceeding by (i) failing to inform plaintiff that defendants signed a protective order that prevented plaintiff’s access to his supervisors’ personnel files, which, plaintiff contends, were crucial to the arbitration; (ii) incompetently handling discovery and representing to plaintiff that he had submitted plaintiff’s discovery responses to Macy’s; and (iii) failing to put evidence of plaintiff’s damages into the arbitration record.[FN1] (NYSCEF No. 1 at 3-6.) Plaintiff claims that “he would have prevailed or achieved a more favorable outcome in the underlying matter” but for defendants’ conduct. (NYSCEF No. 20 at 29.)
Defendants argue that plaintiff’s allegations that he would have succeeded in the underlying arbitration but for defendants’ conduct are conclusory and speculative. Defendants further argue that any failure to put damages into the record is a nonissue, because the arbitrator never reached the issue of damages. Plaintiff contends that had defendants properly conducted discovery in accordance with plaintiff’s specifications and obtained the documents plaintiff sought, that discovery would have “changed the course of the case and was the proximate cause of the eventual loss of the case.” (NYSCEF No. 20 at 8.) Additionally, plaintiff contends that “[a]s a result of the Plaintiff not having any damages on record, he could [not] establish credibility and lost the arbitration and any settlement offer which was imminent.” (NYSCEF No. 20 at 17.) The court agrees with defendants.
A claim for legal malpractice has “three elements: (1) that the attorney was negligent; (2) that such negligence was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s losses; and (3) proof of actual damages.” (Carasco v Schlesinger, 222 AD3d 476, 477 [1st Dept 2023].) On a malpractice claim “based on the alleged mishandling of a litigation, . . . plaintiff must satisfy the case within a case requirement, demonstrating that but for the attorney’s conduct the plaintiff client would have prevailed in the underlying matter or would not have sustained any ascertainable damages.” (Id. [internal quotation marks omitted].)
Plaintiff’s allegations that the additional discovery would have tilted the arbitration in his [*2]favor are speculative. Plaintiff assumes that the arbitrator would have credited the discovery he sought instead of, or in addition to, the in-person testimony and other exhibits provided at the arbitration hearing. But it is unclear whether the personnel files or other discovery might have affected the arbitrator’s credibility assessment of the witnesses at trial or the weight of exhibits upon which the arbitrator based his decision. (See NYSCEF No. 6 at 13-14 [arbitrator’s decision]; see (Cusimano v Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP, 118 AD3d 542 [1st Dept 2014] [holding that plaintiff’s allegations that an arbitral panel would have credited evidence not offered at the proceeding were speculative].) This is particularly so with respect to the personnel files, the contents of which are unknown.
This court further concludes that defendants’ failure to introduce evidence of damages into the record would not have altered the outcome of the arbitration. The arbitrator did not reach the issue of damages. He found that plaintiffs lost on liability. (See NYSCEF No. 6 at 31.) Evidence of plaintiff’s monetary and emotional injury was unnecessary. Additionally, plaintiff provides no allegation to support that having the damages in the record would have induced Macy’s to propose a settlement.
The branch of defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s malpractice claim is granted.”