Attorney client anger may fester for a very long time, and then erupt.  In Katz v Landsman
2016 NY Slip Op 30533(U)  March 30, 2016  Supreme Court, New York County   Docket Number: 161147/14 Judge: Carol R. Edmead we see sort of the opposite.  A dispute, a battle, 6 years go by, and then a second…

New York Univ. v International Brain Research  Fund., Inc.  2016 NY Slip Op   30434(U)  March 14, 2016  Supreme Court, New York County  Docket Number: 652954/2013
Judge: Jeffrey K. Oing  is a rare look into the medicine-research professional funding world.  IBRF suddenly cut off funding to NYU, and litigation ensued. Whether in the legal malpractice…

Analysis of the “but for” portion of the legal malpractice equation is the richest part of the problem.  Departures tend to be obvious or patent; how they affect the viability of the case is the “but for” portion.

Russo v Rozenholc  2015 NY Slip Op 06029 [130 AD3d 492]  July 9, 2015  Appellate Division, First…

First words out of CLE lecturers in legal malpractice settings is “Don’t sue for fees!”  Reason? Legal malpractice counterclaims.  Tarshis & Hammerman, LLP v Hartig  2016 NY Slip Op  50393(U) Decided on March 18, 2016  Appellate Term, Second Department is a prime example. (Disclosure:  Both of the plaintiff attorneys were Kings County ADAs as was…

Cusimano v Schnurr  2016 NY Slip Op 01758  Decided on March 15, 2016 Appellate Division, First Department is a case of husband and wife versus Wife’s father and sister, and in true NY fashion, its all about real estate.

“As a brief summary, this case involves a series of disputes among family members who own…

Davis v Cohen & Gresser LLP  2016 NY Slip Op 50417(U)  Decided on March 24, 2016
Supreme Court, New York County  Ramos, J. presents a most complicated intertwined issue of tolling, statutes of limitation, successor-attorney problem, onset of statute issues, along with the Mental Health Law and guardianships.

The simple story is that Plaintiff became…

Attorney is retained to handle a specific task.  Attorney handles that task.  That’s the end of that particular job.  Related complications arise later.  Plaintiff consults with the attorney on the issue, but the attorney is not retained to represent either party in the complications.  How does “continuing representation” handle this situation?

Mahran v Berger  2016…

The proper response is admissible evidence to show that client timely objected and even better, to show that the attorneys made significant mistakes.  This is exactly what happened in Jaspan Schlesinger, LLP v Neuberg   2016 NY Slip Op 02057  Decided on March 23, 2016 Appellate Division, Second Department.  The Second Department does not take the…