It’s a rare phenominom, but in this case the Second Department took another look at a case, and significantly changed its decision regarding legal malpractice.  in Uzzle v Nunzie Ct. Homeowners Assn., Inc. ;2010 NY Slip Op 01476 ;Decided on February 16, 2010 ;Appellate Division, Second Department   under 2008 NY Slip Op 7905, the AD wrote:"Given the limited scope of the plaintiff’s notice of appeal, the issue of whether the Supreme Court erred in dismissing the causes of action aserted against the defendant John C. DiGiovanna is not peroperly before this Court."
 

Today, that decision was recalled and this is the final outcome: "The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of DiGiovanna’s motion which was to dismiss the cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract insofar as asserted against him, as that cause of action was duplicative of the legal malpractice cause of action (see Maiolini v McAdams & Fallon, P.C., 61 AD3d 644, 645; Gelfand v Oliver, 29 AD3d 736; Shivers v Siegel, 11 AD3d 447). However, affording the legal malpractice cause of action a liberal construction and according the plaintiff every favorable inference, the complaint does state a cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice (see generally Hamoudeh v Mandel, 62 AD3d 948, 949; Maiolini v McAdams & Fallon, P.C., 61 AD3d 644, 645; Malik v Beal, 54 AD3d 910, 911). "
 

What was it that turned the case around?