Legal Malpractice Cases

In a CPLR 3211(a)(1) motion, which is very popular in defense of legal malpractice claims, defendants will offer paper documents which they claim “utterly refute” the legal malpractice claim.  These motions are surprisingly (and disproportionately compared to other areas of tort law) effective.  However, all paper is not “documentary” as we see in First Choice

Golub v Shalik, Morris & Co., LLP  2019 NY Slip Op 32589(U) September 3, 2019 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 158055/2017
Judge: Barbara Jaffe is worth reading, simply for the long description of all the argument for/against malpractice, continuing representation, damages in a tax case, the application of future estate taxes and how

Ripa v Petrosyants  2019 NY Slip Op 32638(U) August 15, 2019 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: 510658/17 restates the age old principle that one may not successfully sue an attorney unless there was an attorney-client relationship, or something very, very close to it.  This was a restaurant investment gone bad.  Judge Leon Ruchelsman  picks

Many a snow and ice case has been lost over the years, and often there are attorney mistakes that accompany the loss.  Whether the mistake caused the loss is a legal malpractice question, and one which is illustrated in Blair v Loduca  2018 NY Slip Op 05744 [164 AD3d 637]
August 15, 2018 Appellate Division,

Bridge View Tower, LLC v Law Offs. of Boris Nikhman, Esq. & Vladimir Nikhman, Esq.  2019 NY Slip Op 51425(U) Decided on September 4, 2019
Civil Court Of The City Of New York, New York County Kraus, J.  is emblematic of what most defense attorneys think any legal malpractice case looks like…no focus, no proof,

Lopez v Lozner & Mastropietro, P.C.  2018 NY Slip Op 08017 [166 AD3d 871] November 21, 2018 Appellate Division, Second Department  is an example of how some judges just get it wrong in legal malpractice settings, and dismiss where there is an actual cause of action stated.

“On November 4, 2011, the plaintiff, a pedestrian,

As is almost always true, plaintiffs are unsuccessful at a summary judgment motion in legal malpractice settings.  The Court can almost always find questions of fact which still remain in the “but for” area  even after a departure from good practice is poundingly demonstrated.

Eurotech Constr. Corp. v Fischetti & Pesce, LLP  2019 NY Slip

We’ve not heard the phrase before, but are familiar with the situation.  Plaintiff gets into financial trouble and looks to fix a mortgage with a modification, a refinance, or some other method.  Things go bad from there.  Ramirez v Donado Law Firm, P.C.  2019 NY Slip Op 01244 [169 AD3d 940] February 20, 2019 Appellate