It definitely seems so to us.  The original decision is a short-form order, which is not available to state the Court’s reasoning, but the Appellate Division cites Plaintiff’s arrest at the nursing home where he worked which shows he suffered pecuniary loss. 

Fountain v Ferrara  2014 NY Slip Op 03947  Decided on June 3, 2014  Appellate Division, First Department reiterates the point that hearsay is an acceptable method of opposing summary judgment. 

"Plaintiff’s deposition testimony that he was employed by a nursing home in 1998 when he was arrested, together with his bill of particulars, were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether he sustained pecuniary losses resulting from the alleged legal malpractice (see D’Agrosa v Newsday, Inc., 158 AD2d 229, 238 [2d Dept 1990]).

Defendants failed to preserve their argument that plaintiff may not rely upon his deposition testimony since such deposition was taken in an action in which they were not parties and were not represented (see Matter of Brodsky v New York City Campaign Fin. Bd., 107 AD3d 544, 545 [1st Dept 2013]). In any event, the argument is unavailing, since defendants’ absence at the time of the deposition merely renders the deposition transcript hearsay as to them (see Rugova v Davis, 112 AD3d 404 [1st Dept 2013]), and "hearsay evidence may be considered to defeat a motion for summary judgment as long as it is not the only evidence submitted in opposition" (O’Halloran v City of New York, 78 AD3d 536, 537 [1st Dept 2010]). Here, plaintiff also submitted his bill of particulars, and "factual allegations contained in a verified bill of particulars . . . may be considered in opposition to a motion for summary judgment" (Johnson v Peconic Diner, 31 AD3d 387, 388 [2d Dept 2006]).

"

Contrary to the general view of how cases are decided in legal malpractice, the focus is almost always on the underlying case, or the "but for" question. Pannone v Silberstein  2014 NY Slip Op 03944  Decided on June 3, 2014  Appellate Division, First Department is no exception.  Was the Article 78 actually filed on time?  No.  Does that make a good legal malpractice case?  No.

"Plaintiff retained defendants to represent him in an article 78 proceeding that was brought to challenge the termination of his employment as a police officer. The determination followed a disciplinary hearing that was conducted by the Police Department of the City of New York. Plaintiff appeared at the hearing with counsel other than defendants. The events that gave rise to the disciplinary proceeding began with plaintiff’s unauthorized absence from his home while on sick report on July 22, 1998. The decision to terminate plaintiff’s employment was based on a finding that he had made false statements regarding his whereabouts to an investigating officer during a "GO-15" interview that was conducted on July 30, 1998 [FN1]. At the hearing, plaintiff admitted that he knew he was required to remain at his residence while on sick report and that he gave a false account of the reason for his absence at the GO-15 interview.

While represented by defendants, plaintiff commenced the article 78 proceeding, which was transferred to this Court pursuant to CPLR 7804(g) on June 27, 2000. It was alleged in the article 78 petition that the penalty of dismissal was excessive and an abuse of discretion. The instant action arises out of this Court’s dismissal of the article 78 proceeding upon defendants’ failure to timely perfect on behalf of plaintiff [FN2]. To recover damages for legal malpractice, a [*2]plaintiff must demonstrate that the attorney defendant " failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession’ and that the attorney’s breach of this duty proximately caused plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages" (Rudolph v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442 [2007]). "To establish causation, a plaintiff must show that he or she would have prevailed in the underlying action or would not have incurred any damages, but for the lawyer’s negligence" (id.). The court below granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment, finding the "but for" element lacking because plaintiff would not have prevailed in the underlying article 78 proceeding. We agree.

The giving of false statements in the course of an official investigation has been upheld as a ground for dismissal from municipal employment (see Matter of Duncan v Kelly, 9 Misc 3d 1115[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 51558[U]; [Sup Ct, NY County 2005]; [also involved a GO-15 interview], affd 43 AD3d 297 [1st Dept 2007], affd 9 NY3d 1024 [2008]; see also Matter of Loscuito v Scoppetta, 50 AD3d 905 [2d Dept 2008], lv denied 13 NY3d 716 [2010]). There is no merit to plaintiff’s argument that the state of the law in 2000, when the article 78 proceeding was brought, would have dictated a different result (see e.g. Matter of Swinton v Safir, 93 NY2d 758, 763 [1999]; [dishonest statements to police department investigators constituted an independent basis for dismissal])."

One of the more interesting legal malpractice cases in the patent area has been the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory v. Ropes & Gray case.  Cold Spring announced the settlement today which ended a cross-state litigation.  It started in the Eastern District, and was transferred to Massachussets, then dismissed in US District Court, District of Massachusetts  there on jurisdictional grounds.  Revived in state court, it ended in a settlement today.

One interesting casualty was the attorney who wrote the patent application.  Ross Todd of the New York Law Journal reports that Matthew Vincent, the partner who worked on the patent application, had his own bad outcome.

"Vincent was dismissed from Ropes in 2009 after the firm discovered that a patent database company he secretly owned billed the firm and its clients more than $730,000. He resigned from the Massachusetts bar in 2009 while disciplinary charges were pending against him. It was not immediately clear Monday where he is working now. "

Norwich, NY:  It is ironic when a legal malpractice complaint is dismissed for technical reasons, and worse when it makes claims that are never compensible.  Nevertheless, in Kreamer v Town of Oxford   2012 NY Slip Op 04445 [96 AD3d 1128]   June 7, 2012  Appellate Division, Third Department  that’s exactly what happened.

"Defendant Roger Monaco (hereinafter defendant) was the attorney who represented plaintiffs at the closing when they purchased that property. Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint against him.[FN*] Plaintiffs [*2]cross-moved to find defendant in default and for summary judgment based on that default. Supreme Court granted defendant’s motion and denied the cross motion. Plaintiffs appeal.

Plaintiffs failed to state a cause of action against defendant. The complaint does not list legal malpractice as a separate cause of action (see CLPR 3014), and all of the allegations concerning defendant are contained in the "statement of facts" portion of the complaint rather than under a specified cause of action. Even accepting the allegations as true and liberally construing the complaint to be alleging legal malpractice against defendant, the allegations are insufficient to make out a prima facie case. An action for legal malpractice requires proof that the attorney failed to exercise the reasonable skill and knowledge ordinarily possessed by a member of the legal profession, that this negligence was the proximate cause of the client’s loss or injury, and that the client sustained actual damages (see M & R Ginsburg, LLC v Segal, Goldman, Mazzotta & Siegel, P.C., 90 AD3d 1208, 1208-1209 [2011]). Plaintiffs allege that defendant knew or should have known of the Town’s zoning ordinances that could affect plaintiffs’ rights as landowners, but failed to advise them of those rights. They further allege that defendant’s actions inflicted emotional distress and caused them to expend money to save their house. These allegations do not set out the standard of skill required of an attorney or state that defendant’s actions fell below that skill level (see Leder v Spiegel, 9 NY3d 836, 837 [2007], cert denied 552 US 1257 [2008]; compare Canavan v Steenburg, 170 AD2d 858, 859 [1991]; see also Kolev and Collins, The Importance of Due Diligence: Real Estate Transactions in a Complex Land Use World, 84 NY St BJ 24 [Mar./Apr. 2012]). Thus, defendant was entitled to have the complaint against him dismissed."

Attorney represents real estate corporation, and represents it, makes loans to it, and in intimately involved for a number of years.  Attorney dies.  Litigation ensues.

Cohen v Gateway Bldrs. Realty, Inc.   2014 NY Slip Op 50832(U)  Decided on May 27, 2014
Supreme Court, Kings County  Demarest, J. is at base, a very sad story. 

"It is undisputed that prior to his death in September 2009, Malcolm Cohen ("Cohen") acted as attorney for Gateway Builders Realty, Inc. ("Gateway"). According to defendants, Gateway retained Cohen on August 16, 2005 to provide legal services in connection with the purchase and financing of property located at 142 22nd Street, Brooklyn, New York (the "Property"). Over the next four years, Cohen represented Gateway in further refinancing transactions involving the Property, whereby Gateway would obtain a loan from a new lender and pay off its existing loan. It appears that Gateway obtained financing from at least four commercial lenders. During the course of his representation, Cohen also made a number of loans to Gateway.

On or about September 1, 2009, the loans from Cohen to Gateway were amended, restated, and consolidated into one debt totaling $325,000, pursuant to a new note and agreement (the "Consolidation Note" and the "Consolidation Agreement", respectively). In support of her motion, plaintiff submits the Consolidation Note, which reflects the consolidation of two prior notes given by Gateway to Cohen, dated November 8, 2006, and October 1, 2008, each for $100,000, with an additional loan of $125,000 from Cohen to Gateway. The Consolidated Note is secured by a mortgage on the Property and is guaranteed by defendant Yildirim, who is Gateway’s principal.

The Lawyer’s Code of Professional Responsibility, DR5-104(A),[FN2] in effect at the time, prohibited an attorney from entering into a business transaction with a client without making certain disclosures and obtaining written consent from that client, as Cohen is accused of doing. While a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility does not alone give rise to a private cause of action (see DeStaso v Condon Resnick, LLP, 90 AD3d 809, 814 [2d Dept 2011]), defendants allege that Cohen’s self-dealing gives rise to a breach of fiduciary duty claim. "In order to establish a breach of fiduciary duty, a plaintiff must prove the existence of a fiduciary relationship, misconduct by the defendant, and damages that were directly caused by the defendant’s misconduct" (Daly v Kochanowicz, 67 AD3d 78 [2d Dept 2009];(quoting Kurtzman v [*3]Berstol, 40 AD3d 588, 590 [2d Dept 2007]). It is well established that an attorney owes his client a fiduciary duty (see Ulico Cas. Co. v Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, 56 AD3d 1, 9 [1st Dept 2008]). Defendants complain that Cohen’s inclusion of the prepayment penalties and high interest rates, and his inappropriately charging legal fees for services "below the standard of care" from 2005 through 2009, constituted self-interest in lending money to Gateway. Plaintiff argues that defendants’ third counterclaim for breach of fiduciary duty should be dismissed as duplicative of the two legal malpractice counterclaims, which are also redundant of each other. As defendants’ third counterclaim contains the same allegations of fact and seeks the same relief as its first two counterclaims, it is dismissed as redundant (see Nevelson v Carro, 290 AD2d 399, 400 [1st Dept 2002]; see also Murray Hill Investments v Parker Chapin Flattau & Klimpl, LLP, 305 AD2d 228, 229 [1st Dept 2003]).

Plaintiff argues that the first two counterclaims are indeed time barred because they rest upon allegations about transactions that are separate and distinct from the debt involved in the instant action. Defendants’ counterclaims allege malpractice relating to a loan made by Silver Hill Financial ("Silver Hill") to Gateway on February 27, 2008, where defendants’ claim that Cohen caused Gateway to enter into a loan agreement with a large prepayment penalty contrary to defendants’ express wishes. Plaintiff asserts that Cohen’s representation of Gateway regarding the loan from Silver Hill is a separate transaction, unrelated to the Consolidation Agreement, which was entered into on September 1, 2009, eighteen months after the Silver Hill transaction. Defendants’ position is that their counterclaims involve Cohen’s continuous legal representation of Gateway and Yildirim.

The court agrees with plaintiff that the Silver Hill transaction is a separate transaction and occurrence from the debt upon which plaintiff is suing. Therefore, defendants’ counterclaims alleging malpractice in Cohen’s representation of Gateway in the February 27, 2008 loan from Silver Hill to Gateway are time-barred. Moreover, it is noted that, based upon the documentary evidence of the loan documents, defendants’ claims appear to be without merit in that all of the mortgages signed by Gateway prior to the Silver Hill transaction did include prepayment penalties. The remaining allegations contained in defendants’ first counterclaim also ambiguously refer to separate transactions which apparently all occurred prior to the 2008 Silver Hill loan and are, in any event, entirely speculative. The first counterclaim is therefore dismissed."

UTICA:    The battle in legal malpractice cases almost always centers on the question of "but for", that hypothetical comparison of the actual outcome to the ideal outcome, had there been no malpractice. Dischiavi v Calli  2013 NY Slip Op 07289 [111 AD3d 1258]  November 8, 2013
Appellate Division, Fourth Department  is a prime example.  Sure, the attorneys told the client that an expert physician was examining the client, when it was really an attorney, and sure the attorneys told the client that a well experienced physician was reviewing the records when it was really a veterinarian, but so what?  Could he have won if they did a good job is the real question.

"Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking damages for, inter alia, breach of contract, legal malpractice and fraud, alleging, among other things, that defendants failed to commence timely legal actions to recover damages arising from injuries sustained by Gary M. Dischiavi (plaintiff). Plaintiffs allege in their complaint that plaintiff was injured as the result of an accident that occurred while he was on duty as a City of Utica police officer in 1991, and that he was further injured as a result of his ensuing medical treatment. Although plaintiffs retained defendant law firm of Calli, Kowalczyk, Tolles, Deery and Soja (CKTDS) to represent them with respect to possible claims arising from those injuries, no action was ever instituted. Plaintiffs further allege that defendants purported to have plaintiff examined by an expert physician but had a lawyer examine him instead, purported to have other expert physicians review plaintiff’s medical records but had a veterinarian perform that review, misrepresented that they had commenced a personal injury action on plaintiffs’ behalf, and created a fake settlement agreement for that "action." This case was previously before us on appeal, and we determined, inter alia, that Supreme Court erred in granting the motions and cross motion of various defendants for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in its entirety against them (Dischiavi v Calli [appeal No. 2], 68 AD3d 1691, 1692-1694 [2009]).

Defendants Andrew S. Kowalczyk, Joseph Stephen Deery, Jr., and CKTDS (collectively, CKTDS defendants), along with defendant William S. Calli, Jr. (Calli, Jr.), as administrator C.T.A. of the estate of former defendant William S. Calli, Sr., contend that the court erred in denying their motions insofar as they concern the underlying medical malpractice claim. Specifically, the CKTDS defendants and Calli, Jr., contend that the underlying medical malpractice claim lacks merit, and thus that plaintiffs could not recover damages based on the failure of those defendants to commence a timely action based on that claim. We conclude, however, that the court properly denied the motions to that extent inasmuch as the CKTDS defendants and Calli, Jr. failed to meet their initial burden of establishing that plaintiffs’ medical malpractice claim lacks merit (see generally Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; Welch v State of New York, 105 AD3d 1450, 1451 [2013]). In any event, plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact (see generally Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]).

A criticism that arises regularly, and which seems embedded in the judiciary’s imagination is that the majority of legal malpractice cases are "sour grapes", "Monday morning quarterbacking" and "reflexive counterclaims."  While we hotly dispute these terms, some cases do prove the generalization true.  Liddle & Robinson, LLP v Byrne  2014 NY Slip Op 31328(U)  May 21, 2014
Supreme Court, New York County  Docket Number: 157825/2013  Judge: Eileen A. Rakower is one such example. 

"This is an action for unpaid legal fees incurred by Plaintiff, Liddle & Robinson, LLP ("L&R") in representing Defendant, Brendan P. Byrne ("Byrne").  The Complaint alleges that Byrne breached the parties’ Retainer Agreement by failing to pay L&R the outstanding amounts due for legal fees and disbursement  expenses. The Complaint also asserts claims for quantum meruit and account stated.

Presently before the Court is a motion by L&R, Batson, and Feldstein to dismiss Byrne’s Counterclaims and Cross Claims asserted against them, pursuant  to CPLR § 321 l(a)(l) and (a)(7). Plaintiff submits the attorney affirmation of  David I. Greenberger, a Partner at L&R. Annexed to Greenberger’s affirmation,  among other exhibits, is a copy of the parties’ Retainer Agreement, L&R’s invoices, and an Order granting L&R’s motion to withdraw entered on March 4,
2013.     Byrne does not oppose.

Byrne’s first Counterclaim against L&R and first Cross-Claim against Batson and Feldstein are for fraud, based on the following identical allegations: 

6. BYRNE was explicit that he was not in a financial position and that he was not capable nor could he agree to pay for fees in excess of his retainer with the firm.
7. JAMES BATSON explained to BYRNE that it would be a difficult process for attorneys to withdraw from a case, hence the large upfront retainer when taking on the case. Therefore, Batson advised that the firm continue to represent the BYRNE. BATSON continued to make representations that if defendants are unable to pay the firm would not pursue defendants as judges generally frown upon lawyers and firms suing their clients and assured BYRNE that the firm "has bigger fish
to fry" than to chase small clients. It is evident in this action that these representations were fraudulent and misleading and subsequent invoices were fraudulent as well.

9. The Statements made by James Batson, with David Feldstein in regards to he [sic] and the firm does not pursue clients for billing hours over retainer which they are not capable of paying.
10. L&R has fraudulently misrepresented facts to induce Defendant to
continue with the action, which the firm was originally retained.

Here, Byrne’s second Counterclaim and second Cross-claim fail to make out a claim for legal malpractice against L&R or Batson and Feldstein. These claims fail to allege any allegations concerning how L&R, Batson, and Feldstein were specifically negligent, and how that alleged negligence was the proximate cause of the loss allegedly sustained.

Wherefore, it is hereby,
ORDERED that the motion is granted without opposition, and the counterclaims asserted by Defendant, Brendan P. Byrne, against plaintiff, Liddle & Robinson, LLP, and the cross-claims asserted by Defendant, Brendan P. Byrne, against James A. Batson and David H. Feldstein are dismissed in their entirety"

Client is involved in a fraudulent transaction, or even in an investment gone sour, and seeks to get the investment money back.  Client looks to see who might be responsible, and attorneys are always a good target.  This sometimes leads to dismissals of legal malpractice cases on standing, privity and statute of limitations. 

Goldin v Tag Virgin Is. Inc.  2014 NY Slip Op 31308(U)  May 20, 2014  Supreme Court, New York County  Docket Number: 651021/2013  Judge: Eileen Bransten is such an example.  "In this action, Plaintiffs Steven Goldin and Rochelle Goldin bring claims on behalf  two accounts managed by Defendant TAG Virgin Islands, Inc. ("TAG")-the Bernice  Goldin IRA and the Paul Goldin Marital Trust B ("Trust") (collectively, the "accounts").  Relevant to the instant motion, Plaintiffs assert a variety of tort and contract claims  related to the accounts against Defendant TAG, an investment advisory group, and its two owners, Defendants James S. Tagliaferri and Patricia Cornell. In addition, Plaintiffs  bring claims against TAG’s legal counsel, Barry Feiner.

Defendant Feiner was TAG1s legal counsel, and according to Plaintiffs, "mostly drafted" certain of the convertible note instruments through which Plaintiffs’ funds were transferred to TAG-related companies. In addition, Plaintiffs contend that Feiner was responsible for wiring Plaintiffs’ funds to the TAG-affiliated companies, including the IEAH Defendants. These allegations are all pleaded "on information and belief." See Compl. para. 81. Based on these allegations, Plaintiffs assert four claims against Feiner – legal malpractice, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and fraud. Feiner now seeks dismissal of each of these claims pursuant to CPLR 3211 l(a)(5) and (a)(7). In addition, Feiner contends that Plaintiffs’ aiding and abetting and fraud claims are not pleaded with the requisite specificity under CPLR 3016(b). Each of Feiner
arguments will be examined in turn below.

Defendant Feiner first objects to Plaintiffs’ legal malpractice claim, contending that is time-barred. "In moving to dismiss a cause of action pursuant to CPLR 321 l(a)(S) as barred by the applicable statute of limitations, a defendant bears the initial burden of demonstrating, prima facie, that the time within which to commence the action has expired." City of Yonkers v. 58A JVD Indus., Ltd., 115 A.D.3d 635, 635 (2d Dept 2014)  "The burden then shifts to the plaintiff to raise an issue of fact as to whether the statute of limitations was tolled or was otherwise inapplicable, or whether it actually commenced the action within the applicable limitations period." Id.

Plaintiffs do not dispute that the legal malpractice cause of action accrued as late as June 2008. Instead, they contend that the statute of limitations should be tolled under the continuous representation doctrine, which provides for tolling "while representation on the same matter in which the malpractice is alleged is ongoing." Waggoner, 68 A.D.3d at 7. Even assuming, arguendo, that Feiner represented Plaintiffs in the first place when the notes were drafted, Plaintiffs provide no support for the proposition that he continued to represent them in the same matter, i.e. during the pendency of the notes through maturation. "The [continuous representation] doctrine is rooted in recognition that a client cannot be expected to jeopardize a pending case or relationship with an attorney during the period that the attorney continues to handle the case." Id. Here, however, there is no allegation that Feiner continued handling the notes through maturation. Accordingly, the continuous representation doctrine does not apply under the facts as pleaded by Plaintiffs in their Complaint, and the legal malpractice claim is dismissed as untimely"

Even if timely brought, Plaintiffs’ legal malpractice claim nonetheless would be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. ‘A cause for legal malpractice cannot be stated in the absence of an attorney-client relationship." Waggoner, 68 A.D.3d at 5. However, Plaintiffs here fail to plead that they had such a relationship with Defendant Feiner. As discussed above, Plaintiffs’ legal malpractice claim stems from Feiner’s representation of TAG in drafting the convertible notes. Since Feiner did not represent Plaintiffs and was performing services only on behalf of TAG, no attorney-client relationship has been stated. See Federal Ins. Co. v. North American Specialty Ins. Co., 47 A.D.3d 52, 59 (1st Dep’t 2007) ("New York courts impose a strict privity requirement
to claims of legal malpractice; an attorney is not liable to a third party for negligence in performing services on behalf of his client.").