Seller of real estate has a building with a 50 year lease ending.  Chase Bank has the lease, and long ago subleased the property for a profit.  Buyer says that he never saw the leases, and that $3750 per month is just not enough to run the building.

Attorney admits that he was sellers’ attorney, buyer’s attorney and the broker in the deal.  Palmieri v Mattimore   2014 NY Slip Op 30300(U)   January 16, 2014   Sup Ct, Suffolk County  Docket Number: 20155/2008  Judge: William B. Rebolini is a description of behavior which cannot but lead to problems.

"The plaintiff Mario Palmieri alleges that he was approached by the defendant with regard to a potential purchase oft e subject property. The defendant had represented Mr. Palmieri and other  family members in real state, zoning, and other legal matters for a period of about 15 years. The original asking price for the property was $900,000.00 but after negotiation the price agreed upon was $700,000,00. Acco ding to the documentary evidence, the property was subject to a 50-year lease held by JP Morgan Chase Bank ("Chase"), which was set to expire in 2011. Under the lease,
Chase paid a total of $3,750 a year in rent. At the time of the sale, Chase no longer occupied the
subject property and ha subleased each of the buildings thereon. One was leased to the State of New York for a monthly rent of $5,665.00. The other building was subleased to the Consulate of El Salvador for a monthly. rent of $4,025.00. Mr. Palmieri testified that the defendant did not inform him that he would only be receiving the rent under the main lease until that lease expired in 2011,
and he testified that the defendant told him several times that he would be receiving $9,500.00 in rent each month. He further claimed that he never saw the lease documents until after the closing and that the leases were not attached to the contract that he signed. Upon discovering that he could receive only $312.00 per month ($3,750.00 for the year) in rent from the property, he was outraged. 

He testified that he called the defendant, who apologized and said he made a mistake. He states in his affidavit that if he ha known the lack of rental income from the property, he would have opted
not to buy it.

The defendant denied at his examination before trial that he failed to disclose the rental  income that Palmieri Realty LLC would receive under the Chase lease until it expired in 2011. He  admitted, however, that he had acted as the seller’s attorney and the broker on the transaction and
that he had received fees from both activities. It is also clear from his testimony that he also  represented the plaintiffs and was also paid a legal fee by them for his work. The defendant also
submitted a real estate a appraisal of the subject property from John Grossman, a qualified ppraiser."

Motion for summary judgment denied as to the LLC.

Litigants get together to buy a restaurant.  Problems arise, and a legal malpractice action is commenced. The proceeds over which the litigants argue arose from a legal malpractice case.  The attorney successfully sued had failed to tell his clients that the attorney’s friend owned the property next door to a restaurant the clients were buying, and that the attorney’s friend was encroaching on their soon-to-be-purchased restaurant.  Things went downhill between the litigants after succeeding on the legal malpractice case.

Buscaglia v Schreck  2014 NY Slip Op 31582(U)  June 10, 2014  Sup Ct, Suffolk County  Docket Number: 26922-11  Judge: Elizabeth H. Emerson should be read for the Court’s interpretation of what seemed to be a complete and total general release.

"The complaint alleges in the first cause of action that the plaintiff paid approximately  $197,000 to Mr. Barr during the course of the litigation, while the defendant only paid Mr. Barr  $20,000. The complaint also alleges that the parties were unable to pay the mortgage on the  premises due to the necessity of paying attorney fees in the legal malpractice action, thereby causing the premises to go into foreclosure. The first cause of action seeks reimbursement of one-half of the expenses paid by the plaintiff. The complaint alleges in the second cause of action that, the during the pendency of the litigation, the plaintiff paid property insurance and  expert witness fees and seeks reimbursement of one-half of those expenses. The complaint alleges in the third cause of action that the defendant wrongfully took various assets of the partnership, including heating oil, from the premises and cashed insurance checks payable to both parties. The complaint further alleges that the plaintiff also paid an attorney to represent the parties to resolve the foreclosure action on the premises and seeks reimbursement of one-half the expenses and assets taken by the defendant. The defendant interposed an answer and asserted a general denial, several affirmative defenses and a counter claim seeking "in excess of $50,000," for the plaintiffs refusal to lease the premises during the litigation.

With regard to defendant’s first contention that the complaint must be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3 211 (a) ( 1 ), where a defendant moves to dismiss an action asserting the existence of a def ensc founded upon documentary evidence, the documentary evidence "must be such that it resolves all factual issues as a matter of law, and conclusively disposes of the plaintiffs claim" (Trade Source, Inc. v Westchester Wood Works, Inc., 290 AD2d 437; Berger v Temple Beth-El of Great Neck, 303 AD2d 346). The defendant contends that the Settlement Agreement and General Release dated April 26, 2011, represents that the parties released all claims that they had against each other. The defendant relies upon Paragraph 4 of the Settlement Agreement and General Release, which states: the plaintiff, the defendant, and Mr. Barr "hereby mutually release each other * * * from any and all claims * * * and liabilities of any kind whatsoever * * *."

”In construing a general release it is appropriate to look to the controversy being settled and the purpose for which the release was executed[,] … [and] a release may not be read to cover matter which the parties did not desire or intend to dispose of’ (Bugel v WPS Niagara Properties, Inc., 19 AD3d 1081, 1082; see also Wechsler v Diamond Sugar Co., 29 AD3d 681, 682). It is also well settled that "releases are contracts that, unless their language is ambiguous, must be interpreted to give effect to the intent of the parties as indicated by the language employed" (Rubycz-Boyar v Mondragon, 15 AD3d 811, 812).

The court cannot determine from Paragraph 4 of the Settlement Agreement and General Release whether the parties intended to release each other from all disputes that were related to the partnership or whether the subject document relates only to the claims in the litigation against Mr. Nitka. Therefore, the branch of the motion seeking dismissal on the ground of documentary evidence is denied. "

A large number of legal malpractice cases are dismissed at the beginning on CPLR 3211 motions.  We believe that legal malpractice cases are overrepresented in these dismissals.  Endless Ocean, LLC v Twomey, Latham, Shea, Kelley, Dubin & Quartararo    2014 NY Slip Op 00087 [113 AD3d 587]   January 8, 2014   Appellate Division, Second Department  is an example of this phenomenon, as well as an illustration of the dangers of a 1031 Like-kind exchange of real property intended to avoid capital gains taxation.

"The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages allegedly sustained as a result of the defendants’ legal malpractice. As alleged in the complaint, the plaintiff retained the defendants to represent it in connection with the sale of certain real property and a related exchange of "like-kind property" pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code (see 26 USC § 1031). According to the allegations in the complaint, the plaintiff, based upon the defendants’ advice, selected LandAmerica 1031 Exchange Services, Inc. (hereinafter LandAmerica), as the qualified intermediary to hold a portion of the sale proceeds, totaling $5.5 million, for the exchange of like-kind property pursuant to 26 USC § 1031. The complaint alleged, inter alia, that the defendants negligently represented the plaintiff inasmuch as they reviewed, and advised the plaintiff to execute, an agreement with LandAmerica, under which the exchange funds were to be held in a commingled [*2]account and not a qualified escrow account or trust. Soon after the sale proceeds were transferred to LandAmerica, its parent corporation, LandAmerica Financial Group, Inc., declared bankruptcy. According to the complaint, the plaintiff’s funds were frozen for several years during the bankruptcy proceedings, and the plaintiff lost a portion of the funds because they were not held in a qualified escrow account or trust. The complaint further alleged that the plaintiff could not defer the taxes on the capital gains from the initial sale, as it did not have access to its funds to purchase a replacement property within the required 180-day period."

"The Supreme Court improperly granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint based on documentary evidence. A motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) may be granted only if the documentary evidence submitted by the moving party utterly refutes the factual allegations of the complaint, "conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law" (Goshen v Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 98 NY2d 314, 326 [2002]). Here, the retainer agreement submitted by the defendants did not conclusively establish a defense as a matter of law (see Harris v Barbera, 96 AD3d 904, 905-906 [2012]; Rietschel v Maimonides Med. Ctr., 83 AD3d 810, 811 [2011]; Shaya B. Pac., LLC v Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP, 38 AD3d 34, 38-39 [2006])."

"The documents submitted by the defendants on appeal, which were annexed to their brief, are not properly before this Court, as they were not submitted to the Supreme Court (see CPLR 5526; Constantine v Premier Cab Corp., 295 AD2d 303, 304 [2002]). Moreover, the defendants’ arguments that relied upon these documents were improperly raised for the first time on appeal (see Salierno v City of Mount Vernon, 107 AD3d 971, 972 [2013])."

Red Zone LLC v Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP    2014 NY Slip Op 04570     Decided on June 19, 2014   Appellate Division, First Department is the latest wow legal malpractice case, since it ended in a $ 17.2 million award, and is sure to be the largest Legal Malpractice award of the year.  Yesterday we discussed the interesting continuous representation issues.  Today, the expert issue.  When is an expert needed?  Would you have used one in a case this large?  None was needed here!

"Plaintiff commenced this action for legal malpractice against defendant law firm based on the alleged negligent drafting of an agreement (Side Agreement) that was intended to memorialize an oral agreement between plaintiff and nonparty UBS Securities LLC (UBS) to cap at $2 million the amount of fees UBS was to receive for acting as plaintiff’s exclusive financial advisor in its effort to acquire control of nonparty Six Flags, Inc., unless plaintiff acquired more than 51% of the voting shares of Six Flags. Prior to the instant lawsuit, UBS successfully sued plaintiff for $10 million in fees in connection with the Six Flags transaction. In the course of that lawsuit, we rejected plaintiff’s argument that the Side Agreement, read in tandem with the main agreement (Engagement Agreement), capped UBS’s fee at $2 million (UBS Sec. LLC v Red Zone LLC, 77 AD3d 575 [1st Dept 2010], lv denied 17 NY3d 706 [2011]) (UBS Decision).

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on its legal malpractice claim was also properly granted. Notably, defendant does not dispute that the Side Agreement was intended to cap UBS’s fees at $2 million. Given our prior finding in the UBS litigation that the Side Agreement failed to do just that (UBS Sec. LLC, 77 AD3d 575), summary judgment is warranted. Accordingly, no expert opinion evidence was necessary before granting the motion (see Northrop v Thorsen, 46 AD3d 780, 782 [2d Dept 2007]). There are no triable issues as to whether defendant, as opposed to plaintiff or its trial counsel in the UBS litigation, caused plaintiff’s injuries. But for defendant’s drafting of the Side Agreement, UBS would not have prevailed in its lawsuit seeking $10 million (see Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442 [2007])."

Claims are often made for multi-million dollar losses, and often they amount to a dream.  Here, in Red Zone LLC v Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP  2014 NY Slip Op 04570  Decided on June 19, 2014  Appellate Division, First Department  the case ends in a verdict for $ 17.2 million.

Of note is the AD’s take on continuous representation, with a 2 year gap.  "The motion court properly concluded that the continuous representation doctrine applies to toll the statute of limitations on plaintiff’s legal malpractice claim. Although defendant drafted the Side Agreement in 2005, it provided legal advice throughout the UBS litigation from 2007 through late 2010. Although plaintiff was represented by other counsel in the UBS litigation, plaintiff and its trial counsel continued to confer with defendant and share privileged documents regarding its defense strategy. In doing so, defendant apparently sought to rectify its earlier alleged malpractice, namely to prevent UBS from demanding more than $2 million when the Side Agreement was intended to limit UBS’s fee. In such cases, the continuous representation doctrine applies (see Luk Lamellen U. Kupplungbau GmbH v Lerner, 166 AD2d 505, 506-507 [2d Dept 1990]; N & S Supply v Simmons, 305 AD2d 648, 649-650 [2d Dept 2003]). There is no basis to find that the earlier "gap" in representation from roughly 2005 to 2007 ended defendant’s prior representation. There was simply no need to consult defendant during that time, and defendant never communicated to plaintiff that its prior representation had ended (see Shumsky v Eisenstein, 96 NY2d 164, 170-171 [2001])."

We’ve remarked in the past that there seems to be an artificially high standard for plaintiff in legal malpractice cases.  On summary judgment we submit that the legal malpractice plaintiff has greater requirement to "disprove" the "but for" arguments of defendants than in any other sphere of law.  As an example Lincoln Trust v Spaziano     2014 NY Slip Op 04601   Decided on June 20, 2014   Appellate Division, Fourth Department  tells us that when plaintiffs mitigated their damages, the wiped them out.  When plaintiffs offered the hypothetical better outcome in comparison to the actual outcome, the Court simply decided that the hypothetical was unprovable.

"Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this legal malpractice action seeking damages arising from the alleged negligence of Albert M. Mercury, Esq. (defendant), who represented Daniel Elstein (plaintiff) at the closing of a $750,000 loan that plaintiff made to defendant Alfred D. Spaziano. The closing occurred on September 12, 2001, and the loan was secured by Spaziano’s stock in Westview Commons Apartments, Inc. (WCA), which owned and operated an apartment complex (subject property) in the Town of Gates. John Hancock Mutual Insurance Company (John Hancock) held a first mortgage on the subject property while, unbeknownst to plaintiff, Monroe Funding held secondary mortgages, one of which was filed eight days before plaintiff closed on his loan to Spaziano.

The complaint alleges that defendant and his law firm (hereafter, defendants) were negligent in, among other things, failing to notify plaintiff that John Hancock had commenced a foreclosure action in December 2001 with respect to the subject property because Spaziano had failed to make his mortgage payments in October and November of that year. Plaintiff did not learn of Spaziano’s default on the John Hancock mortgage until January 2003, when Spaziano [*2]defaulted on the promissory note to plaintiff and WCA filed for bankruptcy. Based on Spaziano’s default on the $750,000 promissory note, plaintiff enforced his security interest in the WCA stock. Plaintiff thereafter partnered with David Reidman, a real estate developer in Rochester, to purchase and manage the subject property.

Defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them, contending, inter alia, that, because plaintiffs had profited from the purchase and sale of the subject property, they had sustained no damages as a result of defendants’ alleged malpractice. Defendants also asserted that plaintiffs are not entitled to damages arising from the unpaid promissory note because plaintiff had released Spaziano from liability on that loan. Plaintiffs opposed the motion and cross-moved for partial summary judgment with respect to several causes of action. Supreme Court granted the motion and denied the cross motion. We now affirm.

To succeed on a claim of legal malpractice, a plaintiff must prove, inter alia, that the attorney’s negligence was a proximate cause of a loss that resulted in actual and ascertainable damages (see Leder v Spiegel, 9 NY3d 836, 837, cert denied 552 US 1257; see also Hotaling v Sprock [appeal No. 2], 107 AD3d 1446, 1446-1447). Here, defendants met their initial burden of establishing that plaintiffs were not entitled to damages based on the unpaid promissory note inasmuch as the release given to Spaziano by plaintiff is valid and enforceable (see Appel v Ford Motor Co., 111 AD2d 731, 732-733; see also Gubitz v Security Mut. Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 262 AD2d 451, 451; Matter of Garvin, 210 AD2d 332, 333) and, in opposition, plaintiffs failed to raise an issue of fact (see generally Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562).

With respect to plaintiffs’ alternate theory of damages—that defendants’ failure to notify plaintiff of Spaziano’s default on the John Hancock mortgage cost plaintiff $703,435.80 in lost profits—we agree with the court that the theory is too speculative to survive defendants’ motion [*3]for summary judgment (see Bua v Purcelli & Ingrao, P.C., 99 AD3d 843, 847-848, lv denied 20 NY3d 857; Perkins v Norwick, 257 AD2d 48, 51; Sherwood Group v Dornbush, Mensch, Mandelstam & Silverman, 191 AD2d 292, 294-295; Brown v Samalin & Bock, 168 AD2d 531, 531-532). As defendants point out, it is not clear that plaintiff could have obtained the necessary funding from First Niagara or any other lender to purchase the property in November 2001, 14 months earlier than the actual purchase date. Moreover, it was not certain that Monroe Funding at that time would have accepted a steep reduction in the amount that it was owed on the secondary mortgages, or that plaintiff and Reidman would have been able to sell the subject property for the same price as they later did. In addition, plaintiff acknowledged at his deposition that he would not have purchased the subject property without Reidman, who, according to plaintiff, was vital to the success of the venture. Plaintiff did not meet Reidman until after he learned of Spaziano’s default on the John Hancock mortgage. As the court stated in its decision, there is no evidence that plaintiff "would have found an investor similar to Reidman at that time, or acceptable to Monroe Funding as the junior mortgage holder."

Attorney sues his former law firm.  At the arbitration, no expert is presented to value the law firm.  Arbitrators rule against the attorney.  He then finds second law firm to "assist in obtaining relief."  No relief is obtained, and the second law firm surreptitiously sets up a legal malpractice case against the "co-attorney."  Is this wrong?

Roberts v Corwin   2014 NY Slip Op 04563   Decided on June 19, 2014  Appellate Division, First Department.

"Defendants represented plaintiff, an attorney, at an arbitration hearing against his former law firm. On May 11, 2006, the arbitration panel issued an interim award, finding that plaintiff had failed to prove any damages, based in large part on the absence of expert testimony regarding the value of the law firm. Following the unfavorable interim award, plaintiff, with defendants’ knowledge and agreement, hired a partner at his current law firm, Epstein Becker & Green (EBG), to assist in obtaining relief from the interim award, including trying to negotiate a settlement with plaintiff’s former partners. While these negotiations proceeded, defendants were still actively representing plaintiff. Defendants characterize their relationship with EBG at the time as being co-counsels. The effort at settlement failed and on July 13, 2006, the arbitration panel issued a final award against plaintiff which incorporated in major part the unfavorable interim award. As a result, plaintiff was directed to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal and other fees to his former law firm.

Defendants then filed a petition on plaintiff’s behalf, seeking to vacate the arbitration award. In April 2007, the Supreme Court denied plaintiff’s petition and the final award was confirmed. After the unfavorable interim award and as early as May 2006, plaintiff was also seeking advice from John Sachs, another attorney at EBG, about a potential malpractice action against defendants. A demand letter asserting a claim for malpractice based upon defendants’ failure to disclose an expert witness, was sent by EBG to defendants in October 2007. In November 2009, EBG, acting as plaintiff’s counsel, commenced the instant malpractice action against defendants.

Defendants’ motion for sanctions, including dismissal of the complaint or the disqualification of EBG from continuing to represent plaintiff was denied, as was defendants’ [*2]separate motion for summary judgment.

"There is no disciplinary rule that expressly prohibited EBG from giving plaintiff legal advice about the feasibility of a malpractice action while at the same time working with defendants to obtain a better result for plaintiff in the arbitration matter, especially when it was clear to defendants that EBG was representing plaintiff’s interests. While we share the motion court’s concerns about EBG’s failure to disclose that a malpractice action was being considered, those concerns do not support the sweeping remedies sought by defendants of either dismissing this action or disqualifying plaintiff’s chosen counsel."

"Sanctions were also properly denied in connection with plaintiff’s failure to disclose a file maintained by his former counsel, who counseled him after the alleged acts of malpractice had occurred, since defendants failed to establish that the file contained discoverable documents that could affect their defense.

The court correctly denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment since defendants failed to establish that, even in the absence of their alleged negligence, i.e. their failure to introduce expert testimony during the arbitration of plaintiff’s partnership interest in his former law firm, plaintiff would not have prevailed at arbitration (see AmBase Corp. v Davis Polk & Wardwell, 8 NY3d 428, 434 [2007]). They did not show that the arbitration panel’s finding that plaintiff failed to prove impropriety in the dissolution and liquidation of the firm precluded an award of damages (cf. Kaminsky v Herrick, Feinstein LLP, 59 AD3d 1 [1st Dept 2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 715 [2009]). Indeed, in rejecting plaintiff’s claim that respondents "looted" the firm, the arbitration panel noted that plaintiff had not shown that respondents’ appraisal reports were materially inaccurate or presented any expert testimony in that regard.

"

Sometimes reading appellate decisions is enlightening, and sometimes it causes head-spin.  McDonald v Edelman & Edelman, P.C.   2014 NY Slip Op 04560   Decided on June 19, 2014
Appellate Division, First Department is definitely a head-spinner.  First, this is a re-write of the November 12, 2013 decision.  A recall of that decision is understandable, since the Court of Appeals decided Melcher v Greenberg Traurig, LLP   2014 NY Slip Op 02213   Decided on April 1, 2014  Court of Appeals  Read, J. on April 1, 2014.

Here is where the AD loses us. In  Melcher the Court of Appeals determined that Judiciary Law 487 is not a statutory cause of action; it is part of the common law.  Judge Read goes into a long and interesting analysis of the source of common law in the US.

Here the AD does several puzzling things.  First, it recalls an earlier decision. Second, it generally affirms the decision of Supreme Court dismissing three causes of action, but grants costs against defendants.  Third, it either mis-wrote, or simply did not understand Melcher.  The Court of Appeals determined that JL 487 is governed by CPLR 213(1).  Two months later, the AD determines McDonald , yet relies upon the overruled AD decision in Melcher.

The AD writes: ‘The fourth cause of action, which alleges a violation of Judiciary Law § 487, is untimely because it was asserted within six years of plaintiff’s receipt of defendants’ June 2008 letter (see CPLR 214[2]; Melcher v Greenberg Traurig, LLP, 102 AD3d 497 [1st Dept 2013])."

There is nothing correct in that sentence.

So, we are still suffering from confusion.