Milgram Thomajan & Lee, P.C. v Golden Gate Petroleum, P.C.    2014 NY Slip Op 24063   Decided on March 19, 2014   Appellate Term, First Department  teaches three lessons.  One is that a well written letter to the client during litigation warning of potential problems in choosing one course of conduct over another may sway the outcome.  The second is that strategic choices, supported by good reasons will often defeat legal malpractice claims and the third is that unpaid legal services, especially those that are recouped from a bankruptcy, can be very powerful.
 

"The action arises out of plaintiff’s representation of the first-named defendant, a petroleum importer, in connection with an administrative protest of a customs duty assessment imposed on a shipment of gasoline and related chemicals. The jury’s verdict, finding that plaintiff did not commit malpractice in its underlying representation of defendant, was not against the weight of the evidence. The trial evidence, fairly interpreted, supports the jury’s evident rejection of defendant’s contention that but for plaintiff’s advice, defendant would have prevailed in the underlying customs protest, one which, the record shows, defendant elected to pursue in the face of plaintiff’s frank admonition that it "may prove a tough fight, the outcome of which cannot be predicted with any certainty." The evidence, including the conflicting expert opinion testimony, permitted the jury to conclude that, in advising defendant, the lawyers of plaintiff law firm did not disregard settled law (see Darby & Darby v VSI Intl., 95 NY2d 308, 313 [2000]) and would have permitted a jury finding that the advice itself was not the proximate cause of defendant’s losses (see Chadbourne & Parke, LLP v HGK Asset Mgt., Inc., 295 AD2d 208, 209 [2002]). And while defendant posits several alternative courses that plaintiff might have pursued in the underlying administrative protest, it failed to show that the tactical decisions made by the firm did not constitute "proper strategic legal decision-making" (Taylor v Paskoff & Tamber, LLP, 102 AD3d 446, 448 [2013]), or so the jury reasonably could find. Nor was the jury’s consideration of the legal malpractice issue shown to have been compromised in any way [*2]by the form of the verdict sheet, particularly when that document is viewed in the context of the charge as a whole (see Plunkett v Emergency Med. Serv., 234 AD2d 162, 163 [1996]).

The record discloses no evidentiary error warranting reversal. The out-of-court statements made by defendant’s (now) deceased chief financial officer were admissible under the "speaking agent" exception to the hearsay rule (see Loschiavo v Port. Auth. of New York & New Jersey, 58 NY2d 1040, 1041 [1983]). Further, in light of the voluminous evidence considered by the jury, including over 60 trial exhibits introduced by defendant, any error in the exclusion of the two documents now complained of by defendant would have been harmless (see Ramkison v New York City Hous. Auth., 209 AD2d 256, 256 [2000]).

We note finally that the court properly directed a verdict in favor of plaintiff on its main claim for unpaid legal services, a claim which, as one abandoned by plaintiff’s trustee in bankruptcy, revested in plaintiff at the close of the bankruptcy proceeding (see Dynamics Corp. of Am. v Marine Midland Bank—New York, 69 NY2d 191, 195-196 [1987]; Culver v Parsons, 7 AD3d 931, 932 [2004]). "

Plaintiff sues several attorneys, and waits until nearly the end of the 120 day period to serve the summons and complaint.  Service is not complete (mailing was later) and each of the defendants has a viable CPLR 306-b defense.  One defendant moved within 60 days to dismiss and one did not.  That 60 day time period under CPLR 3211(e)  is vastly important.  As we see in Qing Dong v. Chen Mao Kao 2014 NY Slip Op 01735  Decided on March 19, 2014  Appellate Division, Second Department

"Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, service of the summons and complaint upon Chen Mao Kao and Dickman was not made within 120 days of the commencement of the action as required by CPLR 306-b. Although the summons and complaint were delivered to persons of suitable age and discretion at the actual places of business of those defendants on November 4, 2011, one day before the expiration of the 120-day period, service was not completed within that time frame because the second act required by CPLR 308(2), the mailing, was not performed within the 120-day period (see Furey v Milgrom, 44 AD2d 91, 92-93; see also Siegel, NY Prac § 72 at 120 [5th ed 2011]). Also contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, considering all of the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying her cross motion to extend the time to serve the summons and complaint upon Chen Mao Kao and Dickman, nunc pro tunc, in the interest of justice (see CPLR 306-b; Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d 95, 105-106; Khodeeva v Chi Chung Yip, 84 AD3d 1030, 1030-1031; Calloway v Wells, 79 AD3d 786, 786-787). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted Dickman’s motion, and properly denied the plaintiff’s cross motion.

The Supreme Court also properly denied that branch of Chen Mao Kao’s cross motion which was pursuant to CPLR 306-b to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him. Chen Mao Kao waived his objection that he was not timely served with the summons and complaint by failing to move for judgment on that ground within 60 days after serving his answer (see CPLR 3211[e])."

For policy reasons New York Courts limit the types of damages that might be awarded in legal malpractice. Basically, as the NY Court of Appeals recently reiterated, only pecuniary loss may be the subject of legal malpractice litigation. This specifically and totally leaves out any type of emotional damages. Nevertheless people suffer these injuries when their attorneys are neglectful.

White v Chelli & Bush 2013 NY Slip Op 30491(U)    Supreme Court, Richmond County Docket Number: 103745/11 Judge: Joseph J. Maltese is one such example.

"The plaintiff has been deaf since birth. After an automobile accident on or about April 16, 2007, the plaintiff retained Chelli & Bush to represent her in a personal injury litigation. According to the plaintiff’s allegations, it was communicated to the attorneys that the plaintiff would require a sign language interpreter during all phases of the litigation. On or about November 28, 2007 the law firm of Chelli & Bush commenced a personal injury action on behalf of the plaintiff captioned White v. Varsertriger, Index No. 104489/2007. The plaintiff maintains [* 1] that the defendants failed to provide sign language interpreters as requested, except for the examination before trial and the preceding preparation."

"The plaintiff’s basis for her legal malpractice claim occurs at paragraphs 63 and 64 in her
amended complaint that allege that the defendants inability to communicate with her represents a
failure to comply with an attorney’s basic ethical obligation. At paragraphs 66 and 67 the plaintiff alleges the following damages:
66. As a consequence of Defendants’ actions and inactions, White experienced feelings of frustration, helplessness and inadequacy throughout the pendency of the litigation and during settlement conferences. Thereafter, she has experienced sleep and appetite disturbances, episodes of crying, fearfulness or trepidation, and feelings of worthlessness, anxiety and depression.

67. As a consequence of Defendants’ actions and inactions,  Plaintiff has been prejudiced and suffered severe emotional distress and is entitled to compensatory damages. The Appellate Division, Second Department has made it clear that claims of damages stemming from the intentional infliction of emotional distress are not recoverable in legal malpractice actions.

“Damages in a legal malpractice case are designed ‘to make the injured client whole’ . . . A plaintiff’s damages may include ‘litigation expenses incurred in attempt to avoid, minimize, or
reduce the damage caused by the attorney’s wrongful conduct’. . .” While the Court of Appeals
has held that plaintiff may be awarded litigation expenses incurred to correct an attorney’s error,
it specifically rejected the notion that a plaintiff could be reimbursed for the expenses incurred
because of an attorney’s negligence.8 Consequently, the plaintiff’s claims for damages based on
the costs and attorney’s fees of this law suit is without merit."
 

SuccessfulJudiciary Law 487 cases are more rare than those dismissed. An attempt to deceive courts coupled with sufficiently egregious behavior is necessary.  Courts often reject plaintiff’s attempts to portray attorney conduct as deceitful, finding instead that it is within normal limits.

In Cohen v Kachroo   2014 NY Slip Op 01674   Decided on March 13, 2014   Appellate Division, First Department  the Court finds that the attorneys attempted to deceive the Courts with claims that the clients just were not paying the bills.  In the past, we have seen these kind of claims to be more or less "boilerplate."  Here is what the AD said about the various claims in the case:
 

"To the extent that plaintiff seeks to allege malpractice based on a violation of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct, such an alleged violation does not, without more, support a malpractice claim (Schafrann v N.V. Famka, Inc., 14 AD3d 363 [1st Dept 2005]; see also Sumo Container Sta. v Evans, Orr Pacelli, Norton & Laffan, 278 AD2d 169, 170-171 [1st Dept 2000]). Moreover, "[t]he violation of a disciplinary rule does not, without more, generate a cause of action" (Schwartz v Olshan Grundman Frome & Rosenzweig, 302 AD2d 193, 199 [1st Dept 2003]).

Plaintiff’s cause of action alleging breach of fiduciary duty is dismissed as duplicative of the legal malpractice cause of action. Contrary to plaintiff’s assertion, the breach of fiduciary [*2]duty claim alleged no new facts and sought the same damages as the legal malpractice claim (Cobble Cr. Consulting, Inc. v Sichenzia Ross Friedman Ference LLP, 110 AD3d 550, 551 [1st Dept 2013]; Garnett v Fox, Horan & Camerini, LLP, 82 AD3d 435, 436 [1st Dept 2011]).

The allegations that defendants were fully paid under the terms of the retainer agreement, but falsely represented in court that they sought to be relieved because they had not been paid, suffice to allege that defendants acted with intent to deceive the respective courts (see e.g. Schindler v Issler & Schrage, 262 AD2d 226 [1st Dept 1999], lv dismissed 94 NY2d 791 [1999]). In addition, plaintiff sufficiently alleged a chronic and extreme pattern of legal delinquency by averring that defendants fabricated certain charges, attempted to extract more money than agreed upon in the retainer, and threatened to abandon the matter if plaintiff did not execute an addendum to the retainer, to defendants’ benefit (see e.g. Kinberg v Opinsky, 51 AD3d 548, 549 [1st Dept 2008]). The allegedly false representations in two courts, and the coercive threats to plaintiff in an attempt to elicit additional remuneration are sufficiently egregious to state a claim for punitive damages (see Dobroshi v Bank of Am., N.A., 65 AD3d 882, 884 [1st Dept 2009], lv dismissed 14 NY3d 785 [2010]; Smith v Lightning Bolt Prods., 861 F2d 363, 372-373 [2d Cir 1988]).
 

Sometimes, but rarely a defendant will move to strike pleadings that are "scandalous and prejudicial" under CPLR 3024(b).  Sometimes it just does not work.  In those instances, as in Armstrong v Blank Rome LLP  2014 NY Slip Op 30570(U)  March 6, 2014  Sup Ct, NY County
Docket Number: 651881/2013  Judge: Anil C. Singh, the court disagrees and finds the pleadings to be necessary and proper.  Defendants get to dismiss a GBL cause of action, but not the main claims.

Plaintiff commenced divorce proceedings against Michael Armstrong in June of 2009. On or about November 17, 2009, plaintiff retained the services of the defendants to represent her in these proceedings. Defendants undertook review of an extensive file generated by plaintiff’s prior Counsel, and consented to a scheduling order obliging the parties to exchange documents by December 31, 2009, and sworn net worth statements by January 9, 2010. On April 7, 2010, defendants hired Martin I. Blaustein, C.P .A. to advise on marital spending and lifestyle, the value of Mr. Armstrong’s professional licenses and components of the latter’s income. Defendants, allegedly based on the strategic advice of their expert, Mr. Blaustein, advised plaintiff to waive valuation, for distributive purposes, of Mr. Armstrong’s professional securities licenses. In waiving this valuation on counsel’s advice, the plaintiff complains that she improvidently deprived herself of her marital share of an asset valued by her own expert, Mr. Blaustein, at $16,167,000.00.
The gravamen of plaintiffs conflict-of-interest allegations is the professional relationship between defendant Blank Rome and her ex-husband’s employer, Morgan Stanley, for which Blank Rome was engaged in lucrative transactional representation in Pennsylvania. Plaintiff contends that the desire to maintain and augment Blank Rome’s billings to Morgan Stanley, motivated the individual partners, defendants Norman Heller and Dylan Mitchell, as well as Blank Rome as an entity, to "throw her under the bus."

Plaintiff maintains that the position of her ex-husband, Mr. Armstrong, is so exalted at Goldman Sachs, and that his interests and his company’s were so intertwined, as to lend credibility to her allegations. In any event, it is undisputed that no disclosure of this concμrrent professional engagement with Morgan Stanley was ever made to plaintiff, nor was any waiver thereof obtained from her. "In general, we may conclude that ‘unnecessarily’ pleaded means ‘irrelevant.’ We should test this by the rules of evidence and draw the rule accordingly …. (I)f the item would be admissible at trial under the evidentiary rules of relevancy, its inclusion in the pleading, whether or not it constitutes ideal pleading, would not justify a motion to strike under CPLR 3024."
(David D. Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of N Y, Book 7B, CPLR C:3024:4 at 323 as cited in Soumayah v. Minelli, 41 AD3d 390, 393 [1st Dept 2007], app. withdrawn 9. NY3d 989) "’Where evidence of the facts pleaded in the allegations has any bearing on the subject matter of the litigation and is a proper subject of proof, the presence of such matter involves no prejudice and the allegations are not irrelevant to the cause of action pleaded’ [citation omitted.]" Tomasello v Trump, 30 Misc 2d 643, 649 [Sup Ct, Queens County, 1961].) Measured by these standards, defendants have failed to show that the paragraphs complained of lack evidentiary relevance, apparent necessity, or have demonstrated any prejudice resulting from their inclusion. Accordingly, this branch of the motion to strike them is denied."
 

Borges v Placeres  2014 NY Slip Op 24053  Decided on March 5, 2014  Appellate Term, First Department  is rather an amazing story.  On one level it is the vindication of a man harmed, on another level it is the story of mistake piled on top of mistake, and in the end, our guess is that there will be a very minimal recovery.   Damages are $1,249,121.37 and it seems to be for mental and emotional disturbance as well as for non-economic damages.  Neither of these types of damages are permissible in Legal Malpractice cases under Dombrowski v. Bulson, 19 NY3d 347 (2012)
 

We wonder whether there was any insurance. based upon the identity of the defense attorney.

Mistakes in the representation:  This legal malpractice action arises out of defendant-attorney’s representation of plaintiff, a Venezuelan native, in connection with an immigration matter. The trial evidence showed, and it is not seriously disputed, that despite a specific directive by the United States Immigration Court that plaintiff personally appear in court on a specified date, defendant advised plaintiff not to comply; that plaintiff heeded defendant’s advice, with neither one appearing as directed on the court date; and that the intentional nonappearance, representing defendant’s purported "strategy" to "buy time," resulted in the Immigration Court’s issuance of an in abstentia deportation order against plaintiff and his subsequent 14-month detention in "lockdown" custody. The jury unanimously returned a plaintiff’s verdict finding that defendant committed legal malpractice, a determination not now directly challenged by defendant on sufficiency or weight of the evidence grounds.

Mistakes in the defense of the legal malpractice case:With respect to damages, it need be emphasized that our review of the jury’s award may not be based on the recent decisional law relied upon by defendant – precedent holding that an award of nonpecuniary damages is generally unavailable to a plaintiff in an action for attorney malpractice (see Dombrowski v Bulson, 19 NY3d 347 [2012]). Notably, defendant did not raise an objection to the jury charge as given, instructing the jury that they could award plaintiff damages for pain and suffering, or to the corresponding question on the verdict sheet, and, indeed, defendant raised no objection at trial to the introduction of evidence regarding the mental and emotional disturbance caused by plaintiff’s detention. Thus, the court’s unexcepted to jury charge became the law of the case, or more accurately, "consent . . . to the law to be applied" (Martin v City of Cohoes, 37 NY2d 162, 165 [1975]; see Knobloch v Royal Globe Ins. Co., 38 NY2d 471, 477 [1976]). Moreover, defendant does not otherwise argue that the award of damages deviated materially from what would be reasonable compensation (see Harvey v Mazal American Partners, 79 NY2d 218, 225 [1992]).

Turning to the propriety of the denial of defendant’s eve-of-trial motion to amend his answer, we find no abuse of the court’s discretion. Defendant’s motion for leave to include the Statute of Limitations as a defense was made approximately eight years after he served his initial answer, and after plaintiff engaged in discovery, motion practice and placed the case on the trial calendar, presumably spending considerable time and expense preparing for trial. Such prejudice, coupled with defendant’s failure to offer an excuse for the substantial delay, warranted a denial of the motion (see Cameron v 1199 Housing Corp., 208 AD2d 454 [1994]; see also Cseh v. New York City Tr. Auth., 240 AD2d 270 [1997]). Defendant’s belated motion for summary judgment on the Statute of Limitations defense was also properly denied.

We read all the NY cases published that discuss legal malpractice, and once in a while we read a case that merely mentions the words "legal malpractice" in another setting. Varano v FORBA Holdings, LLC  2014 NY Slip Op 24056  Decided on March 4, 2014  Supreme Court, Onondaga County  Karalunas, J. is the most gruesome case we have read.  
 

"The Old Forba plaintiffs’ treatment can be summarized as follows:

Plaintiff Bohn treated at the Syracuse Small Smiles clinic between May 2006 and March 2008, when he was between the ages of three and five. During that time he had four root canals with crowns, seven fillings, two extractions and one crown without a corresponding root canal. He was restrained twice, and on three occasions his teeth were filled without anesthesia. Compl. ¶155.

Defendant Montanye treated at the Syracuse Small Smiles clinic between June 2006 and September 2007, when he was between the ages of two and three. During that time he had four root canals with crowns and six fillings. He was restrained three times, and on three occasions his teeth were filled without anesthesia. Compl. ¶ 163.

Plaintiff Fortino treated at the Syracuse Small Smiles clinic between August 2005 and February 2007, when she was between the ages of four and six. During that time, she had nine root canals with crowns, two fillings, two crowns without corresponding root canals and one extraction. She was restrained four times. Compl. ¶157.

Plaintiff Kenyon treated at the Syracuse Small Smiles clinic between April 2005 and September 2008, when he was between the ages of three and seven. During that time, he had six root canals with crowns and seven fillings. He was restrained three times, and on three occasions his teeth were filled without anesthesia. Compl. ¶158.

Plaintiff Mathews treated at the Syracuse Small Smiles clinic between June 2005 and May 2006, when he was between the ages

of three and four. During that time, he had five teeth filled, two extractions, and one root canal with a crown. He was restrained five times, and on two occasions his teeth were filled without anesthesia. Compl. ¶160.

The defendants common to these five plaintiffs include all the New and Old Forba defendants, Naveed Aman, DDS and Koury Bonds, DDS. In addition, Yaqoob Khan, DDS is a defendant in the Montanye, Fortino, Mathews and Bohn actions, Tarek Elsafty, DDS and Dimitri Filostrat, DDS are defendants in the Montanye and Fortino actions, Janice Randazzo, DDS is a defendant in the Kenyon action, LocVinh Vuu, DDS is a defendant in the Fortino action, and Grace Yaghmai, DDS is a defendant in the Montanye action.

Treatment of the Groups 1-4 plaintiffs who are not also Old Forba plaintiffs can be summarized as follows:Plaintiff Martin treated at the Syracuse Small Smiles clinic between August 2007 and May 2008, when he was two years old. During that time, he had 10 fillings, and on four occasions his teeth were filled without anesthesia. Compl. ¶159.

Plaintiff McMahon treated at the Syracuse Small Smiles Clinic between October 2006 and November 2007, when he was between the ages of one and three. During that time he had four root canals with crowns and four fillings. He was restrained twice. Compl. ¶162.

The case is now consolidated for trial in Syracuse, in the near future.

95% of the cases we see are former plaintiff versus their attorney, and the balance are former defendant against their attorney.  Of those, only one or two are the insurance company versus their attorney after a settlement.  Here, in The Insurance Corp. of N.Y. v Smith, Mazure,
Director, Wilkens, Young & Yagerman, P.C.   2014 NY Slip Op 30494(U)   March 3, 2014
Supreme Court, New York County   Docket Number: 102485/2008  Judge: Saliann Scarpulla plaintiff has avoided summary judgment, and the law firm comes back for a second shot.

"Briefly, in this legal malpractice action, plaintiff The Insurance Corporation of  New York (Inscorp) alleges that a Smith Mazure member, Joel Simon, Esq., provided  negligent legal advice to Inscorp in late 2004 and early 2005 regarding the coverage  available under a general liability policy issued by Inscorp to G.B. Construction LLC (the  policy). Inscorp alleges that Simon negligently advised Inscorp’s third-party claims administrator, Ward North America (Ward), that Inscorp was contractually obligated to provide a defense and indemnification to both G.B. Construction and West Perry, LLC in an underlying Labor Law action, captioned Soto v. West Perry, LLC, et al. (Sup Ct, NY County, index No. 114283/2001) (the Soto action). Inscorp further alleges that Smith
Mazure improperly advised it to rescind as invalid and untimely two valid late-notice-of claim
disclaimers issued by Inscorp to G.B. Construction, a subcontractor, and to West Penn, the construction site owner. Inscorp alleges that the disclaimers were, in fact, enforceable because West Perry was not an additional insured under the policy, and because neither G.B. Construction nor West Perry had satisfied the policy’s notice-of claim requirements."

In the prior order, this court denied Smith Mazure’s summary judgment motion, holding that the parties raised triable issues regarding, among other things, whether Smith Mazure improperly simultaneously represented Inscorp and United National Insurance Group (UNG) on the relevant dates in November 2004 through February 2005 with respect to available insurance coverage for West Pen;r and G.B. Construction in the Soto action. In the prior order, the court also found that triable issues existed regarding whether the alleged negligent legal advice was a proximate cause of Inscorp’s damages, and held that the damages alleged were sufficiently ascertainable to sustain a legal malpractice claim.

Smith Mazure contends for a second time that Inscorp cannot demonstrate the damages element of a cognizable legal malpractice claim because it cannot distinguish between the money that it expended in defending and indemnifying West Perry from the money that it expended in defending and indemnifying G.B. Construction, inasmuch as the defense and indemnification of both companies were handled simultaneously by a single law firm, Smith Mazure. In the prior order, this court considered this argument, and held that Inscorp’s allegations that it incurred "$563, 173.13 in defending and settling the underlying Soto action on behalf of G .B. Construction and West Perry directly as a result of Simon’s allegedly negligent coverage advice to Weiss [were] sufficiently actual and ascertainable to sustain a cause of action for legal malpractice."  Last, Smith Mazure argues for the first time that Inscorp cannot prove damages as a result of Smith Mazure’s conduct because Inscorp was aware that West Perry was not an additional insured under the policy, prior to its settlement of the Soto action on behalf of West Perry. Inasmuch as Smith Mazure admittedly makes this argument for the first time, the argument cannot form a basis for reargument."