Billiard Balls Mgt., LLC v Mintzer Sarowitz Zeris Ledva & Meyers, LLP  2016 NY Slip Op 26356  Decided on November 2, 2016  Supreme Court, New York County  Edmead, J.  is an application of a 200 year old case to a question of timeliness.  When does the statute of limitations commence for a legal malpractice case and are there suspensions, stays or tolling of the statute?

Put simply, a one-car motor vehicle accident is reported to the insurance carrier and an attorney is directed to seek an extension to “answer or move” (but not to appear).  Then the insurance carrier declined coverage and the attorney dropped out of the case without any further paper filings.

The case went unanswered until Plaintiff hired new attorneys.  The answer was rejected and supreme court determined it to be timely.  The Appellate Division reversed.  When does the statute of limitations begin to run?  It is suspended, stayed or tolled?

“Billiard alleges that the Firm committed legal malpractice by failing to file a timely Answer by January 11, 2013, failing to move for relief to prevent Billiard from defaulting in the underlying action, and in failing to move to withdraw as counsel. It is uncontested that pursuant to CPLR 321(b), an attorney of record may be changed by filing with the clerk a consent to the change signed by the retiring attorney and signed and acknowledged by the party. Pursuant to CPLR 321(c), “An attorney of record may withdraw or be changed by order of the court in which the action is pending, upon motion on such notice to the client of the withdrawing attorney, to the attorneys of all other parties in the action or, if a party appears without an attorney, to the party, and to any other person, as the court may direct.” (Emphasis added). And, the record clearly contains two stipulations signed by counsel at the Firm stating the Firm’s status as “Attorney” for “Defendants” to wit: Billiard. It is also noted that Billiard alleges that, when the Firm was notified by Capitol Insurance in December 2015 to refrain from further activity, the Firm failed to move to withdraw as counsel and seek a stay of the underlying matter pending said application. According to the underlying Appellate Division order, Gershman moved for a default judgment against Billiard nine months after the time for Billiard to submit an answer expired (on January 11, 2012). Although the Appellate Division found Billiard’s delay in answering at certain points of the underlying litigation unreasonable, the Decision does not address the alleged duty of, or actions by, the Firm during the period between December 28, 2012 (the issuance of Capitol Insurance’s disclaimer) and January 11, 2013 (the expiration of Billiard’s time to answer). Billiard’s time to answer had already expired by the time of Mr. Gash’s January 25, 2013 letter advising Billiard that the Firm “would not be representing” Billiard (Billiard member Aristotle Hatzigeorgiou affidavit, ¶9).

To the degree the Complaint alleges that the Firm was engaged to defend Billiard in the underlying action, and that the Stipulation bears the Firm’s (and its attorneys’) names as“Attorneys for Defendants” “Billiard Balls Management LLC d/b/a Slate,” and assuming such facts as true as this Court must, the Court finds that Billiard states a claim for legal malpractice (emphasis added).

The Firm’s reliance on Paine Lumber Co. v Galbraith, (38 AD 68 [1899]), a Second Department case decided in the 1800s, for the position that it never appeared on behalf of Billiard is misplaced. Paine addressed only the issue of whether an attorney is deemed to have “appeared” in an action on behalf of his client, and not whether an attorney-client relationship [*3]existed between counsel and a purported client. In Paine, one attorney initially appeared in the action on behalf of defendant, and had obtained from the plaintiff’s attorney four extensions of time for defendant to answer. Thereafter, a different attorney signed an answer on behalf of defendant, which answer was rejected by plaintiff on the ground that the defendant had previously appeared in the action by the first attorney, who had not been properly substituted as counsel for defendant. Plaintiff argued that by obtaining the extensions of time to answer, the first attorney appeared in the action and that the answer could not be signed by anyone else in the absence of a proper substitution. Defendant argued that everything done by the first attorney did not constitute an appearance, and that defendant was free to put in an answer and thus appear in the action by any other attorney he chose. Under the theory that “attorneys in behalf of a defendant in obtaining an extension of time to answer . . . does not constitute a general appearance by such attorney” the Court held that the first attorney, “in subscribing himself as attorney for defendants [,] may have sufficed to operate as a waiver by defendants of irregularities or even as an affirmative submission to the jurisdiction of the court, . . . it was not an appearance which prevented the service of an answer signed by another attorney without substitution” (citations omitted) (id. at 70). (Emphasis added). Therefore, defendant “had not appeared in the action until he served the answer signed by” the second attorney. Such case, involving an appearance in an action by counsel so as to effect the manner in which a purported client communicates with other parties, simply does not establish that there was no attorney- client relationship between the parties.

Therefore, the Firm failed to demonstrate the absence of an attorney-client relationship at the time of Billiard’s default on January 12, 2013.”

“While it is well established that a court may not extend a Statute of Limitations or invent tolling principles, some tolling provisions are based upon common-law, equitable doctrines (Brown v State, 250 AD2d 314, 681 NYS2d 170 [3d Dept 1998] citing Roldan v Allstate Ins. Co., 149 AD2d at 33); cf., Shared Communications Services of ESR, Inc. v Goldman, Sachs & Co., 38 AD3d 325, 832 NYS2d 32 [1st Dept 2007] (declining to apply the doctrine of equitable tolling as there was no showing that plaintiff was “actively misled” by defendant, or that it “in some extraordinary way had been prevented from complying with the limitations period”)). Whenever some paramount authority prevents a person from exercising his legal remedy, the [*5]time during which he is thus prevented is not to be counted against him in determining whether the statute of limitations has barred his right, even though the statute makes no specific exception in his favor in such cases” (51 Am. Jur. 2d, Limitation of Actions, § 140, at 711; see also, 54 C.J.S., Limitations of Actions, § 86, at 121—123).

For example, and contrary to the Firm’s contention, the Statute of Limitations may be tolled where the limitations would run against a person unable to bring an action based on a prior ruling (see Brown, 250 AD2d 314, 681 NYS2d 170 citing Roldan, 149 AD2d 20, 32, 544 NYS2d 359) (“the Statute of Limitations is tolled where a cause of action has accrued, but was ‘temporarily extinguished as a result of an erroneous court order, which was later reversed'”); Coyle v Lefkowitz, 89 AD3d 1054, 934 NYS2d 216 [2011] (finding that a constructive fraud claim based on a November 24, 2003 entry of an unsatisfied judgment was not time-barred under the 6-year statute of limitations; the November 24, 2003 judgment was vacated by an order dated October 2, 2006, which was later reversed on September 9, 2008; thus, the statute of limitations was tolled for a period of approximately 23 months); cf. Varo, Inc. v Alvis PLC, 261 AD2d 262, 691 NYS2d 51 [1st Dept 1999] (declining to extend the toll applied to cases where a plaintiff was prevented from bringing suit by court order, where nothing in the Federal False Claims Act (31 USC § 3729 et seq) prohibited plaintiffs from timely commencing this action).

Even assuming the earliest date of the alleged malpractice was December 28, 2012, when Capitol Insurance declined coverage and the Firm ceased all action and did not advise plaintiff of same, or when the attorney-client relationship ceased as of December 28, 2012 (which this court does not find), Billiard was subsequently foreclosed from exercising any legal remedy by virtue of the Trial Court order dated May 7, 2015. Such order excused Billiard’s default, thereby eliminating any actionable injury suffered by Billiard, the statute of limitations was suspended until such injury was revived when, on September 23, 2015, the Appellate Division reversed the Trial Court order finding Billiard in default. In other words, Billiard no longer had a claim for malpractice upon the date of the Trial Court order. The Trial Court compelled plaintiff to accept Billiard’s answer, thereby, nullifying Billiard’s default, and Billiard was restored to its pre-default position in the underlying action. As such time, and notwithstanding that the malpractice claim had already accrued (at the earliest) on January 12, 2013 (when Billiard had defaulted in the action), Billiard no longer had a complete cause of action. As the statute of limitations was tolled during the 504 days (or, 1 year, 4 months, 16 days) between the time Billiard’s ability to sue was extinguished and subsequently restored, the instant action filed on April 26, 2015 was timely filed.[FN3]

The Firm failed to establish that Billiard was not prevented from maintaining a malpractice claim notwithstanding the Trial Court order, and its sole argument in reply, that Billiard failed to city legal authority demonstrating an applicable toll under the circumstances is insufficient.”

Resnick v Abelow  2016 NY Slip Op 32197(U)  October 26, 2016  Supreme Court, New York County  Docket Number: 654313/2015  Judge: Eileen A. Rakower is the very rare legal malpractice case that starts off with a request for a default judgment.  Typically attorneys have malpractice insurance which mitigates against defaults.  Here, as almost always, something has befallen the attorney; death, disability or disbarment.  Plaintiff hired the attorney, the attorney suggested that she invest in a restaurant, $ 300,000 changes hands, the attorney id disbarred for the inability to defend financial improprieties and she sues.

“In addition to seeking a judgment against Mr. Abelow for $350,000, “representing the amount of the ‘investment,’ plus interest and costs, due to his fraud, fraudulent inducement, conversion of [her] money and breach of fiduciary duty,” Resnick is also seeking a judgment in the amount of $236,000.00, which would represent the return of the legal fees she paid to Mr. Abel ow. Resnick states that “Mr. Abel ow never provided [her] with bills that described his legal services, only a statement of hours allegedly spent on [her] case” which “contain no descriptions of services rendered.” Resnick states, “I believe that I was grossly overcharged by Mr. Abelow and that his services constituted malpractice, but for the purposes of this motion I am seeking to recover only the monies paid to him without any regard for the immense damages that I suffered from the monies paid to him without any regard for the immense damages that I suffered as a result of his negligent lawyering and the loss of custody of my son.” Resnick is also asking for a judgment to be rendered in the amount of $586,000.000 against defendant, 1683 Hospitality Group, Inc., “a business associated with Mr. Abelow.” As for the basis to hold 1683 Hospitality Group liable, Resnik states: I believe this business held the monies he defrauded me into giving him for ‘investment’ into the restaurant. I have been advised by my attorney that the corporate records for the New York Secretary of State reflect that this business has the same address as Mr. Abel ow’ s address. A social media business site, Linkedin.com, had this business same [sic] associated with Mr. Abelow. I believe this entity received my money after it was paid to Mr. Abelow. CPLR § 3215 provides, in relevant part: “On any application for judgment by default, the applicant shall file proof … of the facts constituting the claim, the default and the amount due by affidavit made by the party.” (CPLR § 3215[f]). Defendants have not answered or otherwise responded to the complaint, or appeared in opposition to this motion. Plaintiffs motion for default judgment is granted as against Defendants on the issue of liability. However, the statement of amounts due extend beyond funds issued for investment and legal fees and are not supported by Plaintiffs statements alone. Plaintiff must demonstrate her damages at an inquest. ”

Will any of this ever be recovered?  Stay tuned.

 

Plaintiff, a corporation hires and relies on Defendant, and the advice given to outsource human resources and benefits to a third party which takes funds from plaintiff for payment of payroll taxes, then fails to pay the taxing authorities and (surprisingly?) becomes insolvent.

Aside from the plethora of contract issues, is there professional negligence (with its attendant duties) and a breach of fiduciary duty?

Vista Food Exch., Inc. v BenefitMall  2016 NY Slip Op 02923 [138 AD3d 535] April 14, 2016
Appellate Division, First Department tells us that there is no professional negligence where there are no enumerated professionals.

“Because plaintiff did not allege defendants’ violation of a legal duty independent of a contract, the motion court correctly dismissed the promissory estoppel claim in the amended complaint and the negligence/negligent misrepresentation claim in the original complaint (MatlinPatterson ATA Holdings LLC v Federal Express Corp., 87 AD3d 836, 842-843 [1st Dept 2011] [promissory estoppel], lv denied 21 NY3d 853 [2013]; Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v Long Is. R.R. Co., 70 NY2d 382, 389 [1987] [negligence]). Further, plaintiff failed to support its negligent misrepresentation claim with sufficient allegations of “a special or privity-like relationship imposing a duty on the defendant[s] to impart correct information to the plaintiff,” or that the information imparted by defendants was incorrect (J.P. Morgan Sec. Inc. v Ader, 127 AD3d 506, 506 [1st Dept 2015] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

To the extent plaintiff has not abandoned the issue on appeal, it failed to state a claim for professional malpractice because, under New York law, defendants are not professionals (see Chase Scientific Research v NIA Group, 96 NY2d 20, 29-30 [2001]). Further, plaintiff failed to state a claim for breach of fiduciary duty, since there are no allegations in the complaint that defendants misled plaintiff by making false misrepresentations (see Roni LLC v Arfa, 74 AD3d 442, 444 [1st Dept 2010], affd 18 NY3d 846 [2011]).

Two things stand out in the Bernie Madoff spin-off case.  The first is that everyone involved has been determined to be a wrongdoer, and the second is that the case should have taken place in the Netherlands.

In New Greenwich Litig. Trustee, LLC v Citco Fund Servs. (Europe) B.V.  2016 NY Slip Op 06796  Decided on October 18, 2016  Appellate Division, First Department  Tom, J. we see how the Netherlands gets involved.  “The forum selection clause in PWC Netherlands’s contract with the funds provides that [*7]”[u]nless the parties expressly agree otherwise in writing, all disputes between the Client and the Contractor relating to this Contract will be referred to the competent District Court of Amsterdam.” Plaintiff argues that this forum selection clause is permissive, not mandatory; is not binding on the Trustee, since the funds’ manager is the “Client” who commissioned the engagement; PWC Netherlands waived its rights under the forum selection clause by actively litigating in New York; and litigating in Amsterdam would be unreasonable.

These arguments are unavailing. First, the language in the clause requiring a written agreement in order to litigate in a forum other than Amsterdam is unequivocal and indicative of the mandatory nature of the parties’ agreement (see Boss v American Express Fin. Advisors, Inc., 6 NY3d 242, 246 [2006]). Moreover, plaintiff does not allege that the parties so agreed in writing. Second, the Trustee is bound by the clause, because it stands in the shoes of the funds. Third, PWC Netherlands did not unreasonably delay in seeking dismissal under the forum selection clauses. Finally, plaintiff cites no compelling reason why litigation in Amsterdam would be unreasonable, particularly given that related litigation is already pending there against PWC Netherlands. Therefore, the claims by plaintiff against PWC Netherlands were properly directed to be heard in Amsterdam.”

As to in pari delicto:  “In this appeal, we are asked to decide whether New York law, rather than Delaware law, applies to this corporate litigation resulting from the never ending saga of Bernard L. Madoff’s Ponzi scheme. This appeal also raises issues concerning whether plaintiff’s claims are precluded by the doctrine of in pari delicto;[FN1] whether the court correctly dismissed the claims of implied and contractual indemnification; and whether the forum selection clause in defendant PricewaterhouseCoopers Accountants, N.V.’s (PWC Netherlands) agreement with plaintiff’s predecessors in interest is mandatory.”

“The in pari delicto doctrine “mandates that the courts will not intercede to resolve a dispute between two wrongdoers” (Kirschner v KPMG LLP, 15 NY3d 446, 464 [2010]). ”

“Thus, since Delaware law clearly does not apply here, we apply New York law to these actions. Under New York law, we conclude that application of the in pari delicto doctrine mandates dismissal of all the causes of action save the claims for contribution, which fail on separate grounds not raised before this Court. As the Court of Appeals has explained, “[t]he doctrine of in pari delicto mandates that the courts will not intercede to resolve a dispute between two wrongdoers” (Kirschner v KPMG LLP, 15 NY3d at 464). This doctrine “serves important [*4]public policy purposes,” including “denying judicial relief to an admitted wrongdoer” which “deters illegality,” and avoiding “entangling courts in disputes between wrongdoers” (id).

Significantly, under the doctrine, the acts of a corporation’s authorized agents, such as its officers, are imputed to the corporation “even if [the] particular acts were unauthorized” (id. at 465). “Agency law presumes imputation even where the agent acts less than admirably, exhibits poor business judgment, or commits fraud” (id.). Further, “the principle that a wrongdoer should not profit from his own misconduct is so strong in New York that . . . the defense applies even in difficult cases and should not be weakened by exceptions” (id. at 464 [internal quotation marks omitted]).”

 

Centre Lane Partners, LLC v Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom Llp  2016 NY Slip   Op 32136(U)  October 21, 2016  Supreme Court, New York County  Docket Number: 651721/16
Judge: Barry Ostrager  explains the borrowing statute in the dismissal of this legal malpractice case which took place in Oregon.

“The underlying facts are as follows. For many years, the Skadden law firm represented Delford Smith, an Oregon-based entrepreneur, and various entities controlled by him, including Evergreen International Aviation, Inc. (“Evergreen”). Mr. Smith’s philanthropic interests included various Oregon-based institutions, including The Evergreen Aviation and Space Museum and The Michael King Smith Foundation, a notfor-profit that managed the Museum.

In December 2013, Evergreen and certain subsidiaries (the “Debtors”) filed for bankruptcy in Delaware. This action was brought derivatively on behalf of the Debtors by creditors of Evergreen who claim that Skadden committed legal malpractice and breached its fiduciary duty in connection with two transactions referred to as the “Airplane Transfer” and the “Helicopters Transaction.” The Debtors claim that Skadden’s work had the effect of diverting money from Evergreen that could have been used to reduce Evergreen’s debts to plaintiffs.”

“The moving defendants assert that under New York’s borrowing statute, CPLR §202, Oregon’s statute of limitations for legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty applies to this case. The Oregon statute of limitations, Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. §12.110(1 ), bars such claims filed more than two years after the breach. Since the two transactions were completed in April and May of 2013, respectively, and this action was commenced by the filing of the Summons and Complaint on March 31, 2016, defendants assert that the action must be dismissed as time-barred. Plaintiffs argue in opposition that the claims are timely under both the New York and Oregon statutes of limitations. New York’s borrowing statute, CPLR §202, provides that: An action based upon a cause of action accruing without the state cannot be commenced after the expiration of the time limited by the laws of either the state or the place without the state where the cause of action accrued, except that where the cause of action accrued in favor of a resident of the state the time limited by the laws of the state shall apply. Earlier this month the Appellate Division, First Department, made clear, as the Court of Appeals previously did in Norex Petroleum Ltd. v Blavatnik, 23 NY3d (2014), that “the law of New York requires that when a nonresident sues on a cause of action accruing outside of New York, the cause of action must be timely under the limitations period of both New York and the jurisdiction where the cause of action accrued.” 2138747 Ontario, Inc. v Samsung C&T Corp., et al., 2016 WL 5888697 (1st Dep’t October 11, 2016), citing Global Fin. Corp. v Triarc Corp., 93 NY2d 525, 585 (1999). Thus, where, as here, the claim accrued outside of New York and the plaintiffs here are indisputably non-residents, CPLR §202 provides for “borrowing” the statute of limitations of the jurisdiction where the claim arose (Oregon) if the Oregon statute of limitations is shorter than New York’s. It is undisputed that every claim in this case accrued in Oregon, that every transaction at issue was consummated in Oregon, and that the only relationship this case has to New York is that the defendant law firm is headquartered in New York and the defendant partner is based here. Consequently, Oregon’s two-year statute of limitations applies to the plaintiffs’ claims, rather than the longer three-year statute of limitations applicable in New York. In this regard, in Ontario, supra, the First Department made clear that: ”The borrowing statute is considered a statute of limitations provision and not a choice-of-law provision.” Consequently, it is irrelevant whether an Oregon court would or should apply New York substantive law to the attorney malpractice and breach of duty claims. All that is relevant is whether plaintiff’s claims are barred by the two-year Oregon statute of limitations. See Rescildo v. R.H. Macy’s, 187 A.D.2d 112 (1st Dep’t 1993), overruled on other grounds by Ins. Co. of North America v ABB Power Generation, Inc., 91 NY2d 180, 187-88 (1997). As the claim accrued at the latest on December 31, 2013, when the Delaware Bankruptcy began and Skadden’s representation ended, the March 31, 2016 commencement of this suit more than two years later was untimely. “

No, not the Federal Aviation Administration, the Federal Arbitration Act.  The NY Court of Appeals ruled this year that almost every arbitration comes under its umbrella.  Cusimano v Schnurr
2015 NY Slip Op 09232 [26 NY3d 391]  December 16, 2015  Lippman, Ch. J. Court of Appeals. Plaintiffs played a dangerous game.  Did they win or lose?

“The issues presented by this appeal are whether the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) is applicable to disputes arising under the agreements at issue and, if so, whether plaintiffs Rita and Dominic Cusimano waived their right to arbitrate by pursuit of this litigation. We hold that the FAA does apply, but that plaintiffs waived their right to arbitrate.{**26 NY3d at 395}”

“The United States Supreme Court has interpreted the reach of the FAA extremely broadly, characterizing the act’s basic purpose as “overcom[ing] courts’ refusals to enforce agreements to arbitrate” (Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. v Dobson, 513 US 265, 270 [1995]). In Allied-Bruce, the Supreme Court held that the term “involving commerce” was meant to be the functional equivalent of “affecting commerce,” which typically signals Congress’s intent to invoke the full extent of its powers under the Commerce Clause (see 513 US at 273-274).

In particular, the Court addressed the scope of the statutory language, “evidencing a transaction involving commerce.” The Court observed that there were conflicting interpretations of the phrase—whether it meant that the parties had contemplated substantial interstate activity at the time they had entered the agreement, or whether the transaction at issue must have turned out, in fact, to have involved interstate commerce (see 513 US at 277). The [*5]Court concluded that the “commerce in fact” interpretation was more in keeping with the statute, pointing out that the “contemplation of the parties” test appeared contrary to congressional intent, as it would invite litigation about what the parties had been thinking when they executed the agreement (see 513 US at 278). “[W]e accept the ‘commerce in fact’ interpretation, reading the Act’s language as insisting that the ‘transaction’ in fact ‘involv[e]’ interstate commerce, even if the parties did not contemplate an interstate commerce connection” (513 US at 281).

More recently, the United States Supreme Court indicated that it was “perfectly clear that the FAA encompasses a wider range of transactions than those actually ‘in commerce’—that is, ‘within the flow of interstate commerce’ ” (Citizens Bank v Alafabco, Inc., 539 US 52, 56 [2003]). The Court clarified that{**26 NY3d at 399} it is not necessary for the individual transaction to have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, so long as the type of activity at issue has the requisite substantial effect (see 539 US at 56).”

“Although this interpretation is undeniably broad, the Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear that the FAA’s{**26 NY3d at 400} reach is expansive. The idea that the intrafamilial nature of the agreements has some bearing on whether the FAA is applicable finds no support in the case law. Nor does the fact that these agreements do not themselves evidence the commercial transactions appear to be significant. The ultimate purpose of the agreements was to authorize participation in the business of commercial real estate and that is, in fact, what the entities did. In determining whether the FAA applies, the emphasis is meant to be on whether the particular economic activity at issue affects interstate commerce—and, here, it does.”

The scene was charged with energy.  A newly off-the-bench Federal District Judge was arguing in the First Department Appellate Division.  The issue was a situation in which a client had sued the law firm for legal malpractice in US District Court and the law firm had started a declaratory judgment action in state court seeking a declaration that it had done no wrong.  It was unusual to say the least.

The Appellate Division thought it odd too.  Their decision in Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz v CVR Energy, Inc.  2016 NY Slip Op 07091  Decided on October 27, 2016  Appellate Division, First Department, muted as it may be, speaks volumes.

“Order, Supreme Court, New York County (O. Peter Sherwood, J.), entered October 2, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the claim for a declaratory judgment on the ground of another action pending, unanimously reversed, on the facts, with costs, and the motion granted. Order, same court and Justice, entered February 24, 2015, which granted plaintiff’s motion to dismiss defendant CVR Energy, Inc.’s counterclaim for legal malpractice, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion denied.

The court improvidently exercised its discretion in declining to dismiss the claim for a declaratory judgment against defendant CVR Energy, Inc., since there is another action pending between the parties for the same cause of action (CPLR 3211[a][4]; see Syncora Guar. Inc. v J.P. Morgan Sec. LLC, 110 AD3d 87, 95 [1st Dept 2013]). CVR’s choice of a federal forum for its earlier filed legal malpractice action against plaintiff (Wachtell) (see 28 USC § 1332 [diversity of citizenship]) is entitled to comity. Wachtell’s “use of a declaratory judgment action to determine the viability of [its] defense, or the existence of merit, to [CVR’s] legal malpractice claim” is an “unusual” practice (White & Case, LLP v Suez, SA, 12 AD3d 267, 268 [1st Dept 2004]), strongly suggestive of forum shopping, and does not warrant a deviation from the first-to-file rule (cf. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v Jordache Enters., 205 AD2d 341, 344 [1st Dept 1994]).”

You might call this bootstrapping; Plaintiffs called it proper discovery.  Note that the claim was said to be late on earlier motions; now plaintiff gets to add claims for very old audits in this accounting malpractice action.

 In  Conway v Marcum & Kliegman LLP 2016 NY Slip Op 31933(U) October 11, 2016 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 652236/2014  Judge Anil C. Singh notes the rules for amendment of a complaint.

“Under CPLR 3025, “[m]otions for leave to amend pleadings should be freely granted, absent prejudice or surprise resulting therefrom.” MBIA Ins. Corp. v. Greystone & Co., Inc., 74 A.D.3d 499, 500 (1st Dept 2010). While plaintiffs are not required to, establish the merits of proposed new allegations, the proposed amendments must not be “palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit” Id. “A party opposing leave to amend must overcome a heavy presumption of validity in favor of peJ.’.mitting amendment.” McGhee v. Odell, 96 A.D.3d 449, 450 (1st Dept 2012) (internal quotations omitted}. Plaintiffs’ proposed amendments are not palpably insufficient or clearly devoid of merit. See Pier 59 Studios L.P. v. Chelsea Piers L.P., 40 A.D.3d 363, 366 (1st Dept 2007) (“Once a prima facie basis for the amendment has been established, ; that should end the inquiry.”) (citation omitted). The proposed amendments were ‘ supported by a sufficient showing of merit through the submission of an affirmation by counsel,· a redline of the proposed changes to the complaint, along with relevant ‘ documents including invoices produced by the Defendants related to the 2009 and 2010 audits’. In fact, Defendants do not contend, in their reply, that the proposed amendments are without merit.

Defendants contend that Plaintiffs motion should be denied because of undue delay. Defendants contend thatPlaintiffs should have brought this case in 2012, or even as early as 2011. However, this Court and the First Department have held that the original complaint was filed in a timely manner when this action was commenced in July 2014. Stokoe v. Marcum & Kliegman LLP, No. 6552236/2014, 2015 WL 1306995, at *5 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. Mar. 16, 2015), affd, 135 A.D.3d 645 (1st Dept 2016). Plaintiffs’ contend that the new information in the amended complaint relates to allegations concerning the 2009 and 2010 audits, which they assert they became aware of in February 2016. See AC i-fi-f 129-30, 151, 168, 217-18, 224-49 (new allegations concerning 2009 and 2010 Audits); Gross Reply Aff. i-fi-f 12-13; see also Gross Moving Aff., Exh. Z.”

“Consequently, Plaintiffs’ proposed amendments are not palpably insufficient nor do they impose undue prejudice or surprise. “

Aside from the fact that almost all of the parties to this transaction, as well as to the legal representation are dead, the point of this case is that courts will not allow speculation on what advice might have been given and how a specific person might have reacted to that advice, when there is no objective way of answering the question.

Gourary v Green  2016 NY Slip Op 06888  Decided on October 20, 2016  Appellate Division, First Department is the story of an elderly man’s disposition of a corporation and how it affected the next generation.

“Plaintiff, the administrator of the estate of his deceased father, Paul Gourary (Gourary), alleges that, in connection with the May 2006 sale of Gourary’s 50% share in a New York S-corporation to defendant Macomber, the son-in-law of the corporation’s other 50% shareholder, Oliver Laster (since deceased) (Laster), defendant Paul Green (since deceased) and his law firm, defendant Green & Ettinger, committed legal malpractice and fraud in connection with their representation of Gourary in the sale, enabling Macomber to purchase Gourary’s interest in the corporation at a steep discount.

The Green defendants established prima facie, through deposition testimony and two experts’ affidavits, that the sale was consistent with Gourary’s objectives, that Green did not represent Macomber before the deal was struck, and that the evidence did not support an inference that Green’s representation violated the ethics rules or was inconsistent with the standard of professional conduct (see AmBase Corp. v Davis Polk & Wardwell, 8 NY3d 428, 434 [2007]). Moreover, defendants established the absence of proximately caused damages; since “there is no way to know whether the advice not given . . . would have altered the [outcome],'” the claim of damages is speculative (id. at 436; see also Fielding v Kupferman, 104 AD3d 580 [1st Dept 2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 859 [2013]; Global Bus. Inst. v Rivkin Radler LLP, 101 AD3d 651, 652 [1st Dept 2012]).

Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the Green defendants were not required to submit an expert opinion on the issue of causation. Unlike issues implicating “the byzantine world of immigration law” (see Suppiah v Kalish, 76 AD3d 829, 833 [1st Dept 2010], appeal withdrawn 16 NY3d 796 [2011]), the issue of causation in this case rests on the “discrete factual question” of how Gourary, a lay person, would have reacted to certain information (see Wo Yee Hing Realty Corp. v Stern, 99 AD3d 58, 63 [1st Dept 2012]).

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. There is no evidence that Green represented Macomber and Gourary dually in connection with the negotiations for the sale of Gourary’s share of the corporation. Before making an offer, Macomber had consulted a tax lawyer; later he retained separate counsel to provide services in connection with the transaction. Moreover, Green’s structuring of the transaction favored Gourary’s interests over those of Macomber. Plaintiff’s real estate law expert’s opinion concerning the alleged dual representation was made without the benefit of knowing what, if anything, Green and Gourary discussed with [*2]respect to the price of the sale, and assumes that there were either no such discussions or that, on Green’s side, the discussions failed to sufficiently promote Gourary’s interests. In contrast to Papaioannou v Lukas (170 AD2d 289 [1st Dept 1991]), relied upon by plaintiff, there are no questions here about the nature of advice Green provided Gourary. The nature of that advice is simply unknown.”