A new luxury condo is built on the Bowery and on a cold night, pipes freeze.  80,000 gallons of water pour through the building, and when workers start to fix the problem, more and more problems are found.  Who is responsible?  The Sponsor ? The contractors?

Board of Mgrs. of 250 Bowery Condominium v 250  …

The trinity of claims in legal malpractice is “Legal Malpractice”, “Breach of Contract” and “Breach of Fiduciary Duty.”  Often, the breach of contact is dismissed as duplicitive of the LM, and the Breach of Fiduciary Duty is similarly treated.  Here, in an about-face, the First Department takes a differing view in City of New York …

MINEOLA:  Millet v Kamen  2018 NY Slip Op 28181  Decided on May 31, 2018  Supreme Court, Nassau County Marber, J. is a case that discusses the balance in obligation and remedy between Professionals and others.  Sometimes professionals, such as defendant-architect do business with non-professionals, but do not render professional services.  In this case Defendant…

Debra Cascardo is a pro-se litigant in Cascardo v Macklowitz  2018 NY Slip Op 31231(U) June 8, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 101528/2017 Judge: Frank P. Nervo. One of her earlier legal malpractice cases, in her married name,  added to the Harvey line of cases in which a legal malpractice case is…

Central Amusement Intl. LLC v Lexington Ins. Co.  2018 NY Slip Op 04095  Decided on June 7, 2018 Appellate Division, First Department demonstrates that while permission to amend a pleading should be freely given, its not the same standard for the complaint as it is for the answer.

“The motion court did not abuse its…

NEW CITY:     A recurring strain of legal malpractice cases come from matrimonial settlements.  More than any other sector of litigation, matrimonial settlements tempt the Courts to avoid a “effectively compelled to settle” analysis in favor of a “I’m satisfied with my attorney” analysis.  Imagine if medical malpractice law allowed a surgical patient to be awoken…

BUFFALO:  Experts are important, no?  The short answer is “of course!”  The longer answer is that they are necessary, absolutely necessary, to plaintiff’s legal malpractice case, as Murray v Lipman 2018 NY Slip Op 04484  Decided on June 15, 2018  Appellate Division, Fourth Department tells us.

“Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this legal malpractice action seeking damages…

Cohen v Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C.  Decided on June 14, 2018  Appellate Division, First Department discusses the question of whether it can be legal malpractice not to search for and attempt to apply insurance for the client.  While it may take the case away from counsel, it is of course more beneficial to the…