Herz v London Indusi LLP 2023 NY Slip Op 33683(U) September 15, 2023
Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 510794/21 Judge: Ingrid Joseph is a complicated and interesting case of accidental/medical malpractice death in a nursing home where a claim was made against the nursing home and for an accidental death insurance policy
Uncategorized
Privity, The Union Lawyer and Legal Malpractice
The social policy enforced by courts in NY requiring privity of contract between the client and the attorney (contrast with commercial law, strict product liability and the difference between tort and contract law) comes up in some strange ways.
Suing the lawyer provided by a union is one specialized problem. The issue is illustrated in…
Restaurant Business, Local Law 11 and Legal Malpractice
Emmanuel Assoc., LLC v Cullinan 2023 NY Slip Op 33478(U) October 5, 2023
Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 159627/2022
Judge: Lori S. Sattler is the story of a restaurant needing the outdoor and backyard space and then being squeezed by Local Law 11 scaffolding taking away the space. Were the attorneys…
Legal Malpractice upon Legal Malpractice upon Personal Injury
Gopstein v Bellinson Law, LLC 2023 NY Slip Op 33476(U) October 4, 2023
Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 159060/2022
Judge: Mary V. Rosado is an example of what courts fear in the legal malpractice field: metastasizing suits, each based upon the earlier suit. The rule of privity surely exists to stop…
No Privity? No Problem
It is unusual, and definitely an exception to the requirement of privity of contract between a client and the attorney in order to make a good legal malpractice claim, but such claims can be made in the absence of privity where fraud, collusion, malice or other special circumstances are alleged. Hager v Inner Circle Logistics, …
Not Enough For a Good Judiciary Law 487 Claim
In Sage v Neil H. Greenberg & Assoc., P.C. 2023 NY Slip Op 04787 Decided on September 27, 2023 Appellate Division, Second Department there is not a lot of explanation, but the Judiciary Law 487 claim was dismissed for lack of sufficient allegations of deceit.
“Neil H. Greenberg and Associates, P.C., a law firm, and…
Not Enough In The Complaint for Legal Malpractice Claim
Jarmuth v Wagner 2023 NY Slip Op 04820 Decided on September 28, 2023 Appellate Division, First Department is the story of a co-op shareholder bringing what was in essence a derivative action against the co-op’s attorneys concerning co-op litigation. The shareholder did not succeed in pleading legal malpractice.
“To properly plead a cause of action…
Referee to Determine how Intentionally Deceitful Was Attorney Conduct
In an unique Judiciary Law 487 setting, Justice Billings has appointed a Referee to hear and determine Judiciary Law 487 claims in Papageorgiou v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc. 2023 NY Slip Op 33217(U) September 15, 2023 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 115106/2004.
“To the extent the motion by Flomenhaft…
Death, Brothers and Legal Malpractice
Eshaghian v Dorsey & Whitney LLP 2023 NY Slip Op 33102(U) September 6, 2023
Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 154087/2020
Judge: Shlomo S. Hagler is the inverse of a common legal malpractice trope, siblings who act badly to each other for financial reasons which then devolves into legal malpractice claims over…
The “But For” Difference in Legal Malpractice
While proximate cause is always an element of torts, we believe that the additional element of “but for” causation is unique to legal malpractice claims. “An attorney’s conduct or inaction is the proximate cause of a plaintiff’s damages if “but for” the attorney’s negligence “the plaintiff would have succeeded on the merits of…