In Green v Gross & Levin, LLP   2012 NY Slip Op 09027   Decided on December 26, 2012
Appellate Division, Second Department  which is a Pro-se legal malpractice complaint, all that can be discerned from the Appellate Division is that there were a lot of causes of action and that some of them survived.

The AD disagreed with Supreme Court’s reason for dismissal, but nevertheless dismissed on alternate grounds.  "The Supreme Court correctly concluded that personal jurisdiction over Naidoo was never obtained, as the plaintiff failed to present prima facie proof that Naidoo was served with process in accordance with CPLR 308. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against Naidoo, based on lack of personal jurisdiction.

However, the Supreme Court should not have granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against G & L, based on lack of personal jurisdiction. The plaintiff presented prima facie proof that service was effected upon Gross, a partner in G & L, by personally delivering a copy of the summons with notice to a paralegal at the office of G & L, which was Gross’s actual place of business, and then mailing a copy of it to Gross at G & L in an envelope marked personal and confidential and not [*2]indicating that the communication was from an attorney or concerned a legal action. Contrary to the conclusion of the Supreme Court, this service was sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over G & L, which is a limited liability partnership, since service was properly effected upon one of G & L’s partners (see CPLR 308[2]; 310-a; Maine v Jay St. Realty Assoc., 187 Misc 2d 376, 379; Atkinson v D.M.A. Enters., 159 Misc 2d 476, 479-480; see also Foy v 1120 Ave. of the Ams. Assoc., 223 AD2d 232, 236-238). Although G & L alleges that only one copy of the summons with notice was left with the paralegal, this was not a jurisdictional defect, since such notice was reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise Gross and, hence, G & L, of the pendency of the action and afford G & L an opportunity to present its objections and defenses (see Raschel v Rish, 69 NY2d 694, 696; see also Brown v Sagamore Hotel, 184 AD2d 47; Matter of T.E.A. Mar. Automotive Corp. v Scaduto, 181 AD2d 776).

Although lack of personal jurisdiction was not a proper basis for dismissal of the complaint against G & L, and the Supreme Court incorrectly determined that the first, second, fourth, fifth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth causes of action did not state a cause of action against Gross, those defendants correctly contend that alternative grounds for affirmance exist with respect to certain of those causes of action.

"On a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) for failure to state a cause of action, the court must afford the pleading a liberal construction, accept all facts as alleged in the pleading to be true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory" (Breytman v Olinville Realty, LLC, 54 AD3d 703, 704-704; see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87). "A motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the action is barred by documentary evidence may be granted only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes the plaintiff’s factual allegations, thereby conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law" (Mendelovitz v Cohen, 37 AD3d 670, 670; see Goshen v Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 98 NY2d 314, 326). "

"Here, the documentary evidence conclusively established a defense as a matter of law to the allegations of legal malpractice, as set forth in the first and fourth causes of action insofar as asserted against G & L and Gross, and the seventh cause of action, which was only asserted against G & L. In addition, the third cause of action fails to state a cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice insofar as asserted against both G & L and Gross, and the sixth cause of action, which was only asserted against G & L, fails to state a cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice against it. However, the documentary evidence did not conclusively establish a defense as a matter of law as to the remaining causes of action. Moreover, the allegations set forth in the eighth cause of action state a cognizable cause of action against G & L, and the allegations set forth in the remaining causes of action state cognizable causes of action against both G & L and Gross. "

Plaintiff seemingly made some bad procedural choices during the litigation, and even though defendants failed to appeal from all the issues, they ultimately win.

In Wright v Shapiro   2012 NY Slip Op 08964   Released on December 21, 2012   Appellate Division, Fourth Department  the Court writes:
 

"James J. Shapiro and James J. Shapiro, P.A. (defendants) appeal from an order denying their motion for summary judgment dismissing the second amended complaint against them and granting plaintiff’s cross motion to compel the deposition of James Shapiro. We note at the outset that, although defendants’ notice of appeal is from the order in its entirety, they do not address plaintiff’s cross motion in their brief and thus, as limited by their brief, are deemed to have appealed only from the denial of their motion. We further note that the appeal taken by defendant Chikovsky & Associates, P.A. has been deemed abandoned and dismissed by its failure to perfect the appeal in a timely fashion (see 22 NYCRR 1000.12 [b]).

We agree with defendants that Supreme Court erred in denying their motion. By establishing that plaintiff could not have prevailed in his underlying personal injury action, defendants met their initial burden of establishing their entitlement to summary judgment with respect to the first cause of action against them, for legal malpractice (see Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442), and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see generally Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). We note that the court erred in concluding, based on our decision in Wright v Shapiro (16 AD3d 1042), that the doctrine of law of the case precluded summary judgment following discovery. Furthermore, plaintiff’s theory of liability premised on respondeat superior is barred by his discontinuation of that action on the merits against the employee, thus eliminating the triable issue of fact we discussed in our subsequent decision in Wright v Shapiro (35 AD3d 1253). Therefore, the court should have [*2]granted defendants’ motion with respect to the first cause of action in that regard (see Town of Angelica v Smith, 89 AD3d 1547, 1549-1550).

Inasmuch as the second cause of action is premised upon the legal malpractice cause of action, which we are hereby dismissing against defendants, we further conclude that the court erred in denying defendants’ motion with respect to the second cause of action against them. "

Husband suffers personal injury in a fall from a scaffold.  He resolves the case for $1M.  Even at that number, he and wife then succeed in a legal malpractice case for an additional $ 297,000.  What happens then?  Burnett v Burnett   2012 NY Slip Op 08850   Decided on December 20, 2012 Appellate Division, Third Department tells the sad but familiar story of everything unraveling.
 

"The parties were married in 1974 and raised six grown children. During the course of the marriage, plaintiff (hereinafter the wife) worked within the home and defendant (hereinafter the husband) was the primary wage earner, excluding a period during the marriage — described by Supreme Court as "significant" in duration — when the husband left the wife and children dependant upon public assistance benefits and charity from her family. In 2002, in the course of his employment, the husband suffered personal injuries in a fall from a scaffold. In 2006, the parties settled their claims for personal injury and loss of consortium in the combined net sum of $1 million and deposited the funds into a joint investment account managed by their son, with the stated intention of drawing $4,000 monthly from the account for their household expenses and support. In 2007, they jointly obtained a settlement payment upon a legal malpractice action (arising from the underlying personal injury and consortium claims) in the sum of roughly $297,000. The husband deposited this check into his separate account. Thereafter, the husband engaged in extensive and habitual gambling, depleting the accounts. After learning of an adulterous affair in 2009, the wife withdrew the remaining balance of just under $140,000 from the joint investment account. The husband has never accounted for the funds from the malpractice settlement and Supreme Court found, based upon this failure and upon his "less than forthcoming testimony," that the possibility remained that he had secreted or transferred assets.

Supreme Court awarded the wife title to the marital residence, the remaining balance of [*2]the investment account, and the household furnishings and farm equipment. The husband received his checking account, plumbing business and equipment, and a motor boat and trailer. The husband appeals.

We reject the husband’s contention that Supreme Court erred in determining that the settlement funds were marital property. Although the governing statute provides that compensation for personal injury constitutes separate property (see Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [1] [d] [2]), here, Supreme Court noted the complete lack of any evidence upon which the funds might have been allocated as between the husband’s personal injury claim and the wife’s consortium claim, and the substantial evidence supporting the legal presumption that the parties wished to treat the proceeds as joint assets of the marriage (see Cameron v Cameron, 22 AD3d 911, 912 [2005]; Garner v Garner, 307 AD2d 510, 512 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 516 [2003])."
 

Both the underlying case and the legal malpractice case were resolved by summary judgment, except that the Appellate Division reversed dismissal of the legal malpractice case, and determined that the motion was so deficient that they did not need to read plaintiff’s brief.

In Lever v Roesch   2012 NY Slip Op 08699  Decided on December 19, 2012  Appellate Division, Second Department We see the story of a trip and fall in a parking lot, and how it went sour.
 

"The plaintiff allegedly sustained personal injuries when she tripped and fell over a hole in the parking lot of a shopping center. She retained the defendants to commence a personal injury action on her behalf against Breslin Realty Development Corp. (hereinafter Breslin), the owner of the property where she allegedly fell. Thereafter, the Supreme Court granted Breslin’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the underlying action. Specifically, the Supreme Court found that, in opposition to Breslin’s prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Breslin either created or had actual or constructive notice of the alleged defect. The Supreme Court denied the plaintiff’s motion for leave to renew and reargue her opposition to Breslin’s motion.

The plaintiff subsequently commenced the instant action to recover damages for legal malpractice, alleging, inter alia, that the defendants failed to timely locate potential notice witnesses and to properly oppose Breslin’s motion for summary judgment, which resulted in the dismissal of the underlying action. The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in the instant action, and the Supreme Court granted their motion.

"In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the attorney 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" (Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Lovino, Inc. v Lavallee Law Offs., 96 AD3d 910, 911-912; Verdi v Jacoby & Meyers, LLP, 92 AD3d 771, 772). "To establish [*2]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" (Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d at 442; see Barbieri v Fishoff, 98 AD3d 703; Board of Mgrs. of Bay Club v Borah, Goldstein, Schwartz, Altschuler & Nahins, P.C., 97 AD3d 612, 613). "To succeed on a motion for summary judgment, the defendant in a legal malpractice action must present evidence in admissible form establishing that the plaintiff is unable to prove at least one of these essential elements" (Verdi v Jacoby & Meyers, LLP, 92 AD3d at 772 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

Here, the defendants did not establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff will be unable to prove at least one of the elements of legal malpractice, and thus failed to demonstrate their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Affordable Community, Inc. v Simon, 95 AD3d 1047, 1048). Triable issues of fact exist, inter alia, as to whether the defendants were negligent in their representation of the plaintiff in the underlying action. In light of our determination, we need not address the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s opposition papers (see generally Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853). "

Sometimes, the world of legal malpractice seems to be topsy-turvy in the sense that defendants point to their acts as proof that they did not commit legal malpractice, and plaintiffs point to the same act to prove the opposite. Here in Marom v Anselmo ; 2011 NY Slip Op 08914 ;  Appellate Division, Second Department we see a prime example. Did defendant agree to structure a financial transaction and then do the paperwork too late, or does the late paperwork prove the opposite?
 

"Here, the amended complaint stated a cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice by alleging that the defendant attorney failed to structure the plaintiff’s $500,000 investment in a condominium construction project as a loan secured by a first mortgage on the condominium property as the defendant had agreed to do, and that, but for this failure, the plaintiff would have been able to recover his investment when the project was abandoned Moreover, the evidentiary proof submitted by the defendant in support of his motion, which consisted primarily of a limited liability company operating agreement signed by the plaintiff three days after the closing on the condominium property, and a loan resolution also allegedly signed after the closing, did not demonstrate that a material fact alleged in the complaint was not a fact at all, and that no significant dispute existed regarding it. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7). "

Personal injury and legal malpractice cases have many strong bonds.  Because a sizable portion of the litigation world is devoted to personal injuries (on both the plaintiff’s and defendant’s side), one correctly expects significant legal malpractice litigation after-wards.  How the legal malpractice case proceeds along with or after the PI case is a not well understood procedure.  In Simoni v Costigan 2012 NY Slip Op 07882  Decided on November 20, 2012   Appellate Division, First Department and Simoni v Napoli   2012 NY Slip Op 08639   Decided on December 13, 2012
Appellate Division, First Department we see two sides of the same issue. 
 

Costigan:   Although the personal injury actions and the legal malpractice action involve "a common question of law or fact" (CPLR 602[a]), consolidation could engender jury confusion and [*2]prejudice the defendants in the malpractice action (see Addison v New York Presbyt. Hosp./Columbia Univ. Med. Ctr., 52 AD3d 269, [1st Dept 2008]; Brown v Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 137 AD2d 479 [2nd Dept 1988]).

Napoli: The motion court providently exercised its discretion in denying defendants’ request for a stay of the legal malpractice action pending resolution of plaintiff’s personal injury action (see CPLR 2201). The proceedings do not share complete identity of parties, claims and relief sought (see 952 Assoc., LLC v Palmer, 52 AD3d 236 [1st Dept 2008]; Esposit v Anderson Kill Olick & Oshinsky, P.C., 237 AD2d 246 [2d Dept 1997]).

The motion court also properly permitted plaintiff to amend the complaint (see CPLR 3025[b]). The amended complaint and the documents submitted in support of the cross motion allege facts from which it could reasonably be inferred that defendants’ negligence caused plaintiff’s loss (see Garnett v Fox, Horan & Camerini, LLP, 82 AD3d 435 [1st Dept 2011]). At this stage of the proceedings, plaintiff does not have to show that he actually sustained damages as a result of defendants’ alleged malpractice (id. at 436).

Breytman v Schechter   2012 NY Slip Op 08475   Decided on December 12, 2012   Appellate Division, Second Department seems to be the culmination of a very contentions case.  Early on, Plaintiff earned the ire of Justice Schack in Supreme Court, Kings County.  The AD now has written a decision which in many ways mirrors the Supreme Court decision.
 

"The appeal from the intermediate order dated February 8, 2011, must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action (see Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241). The issues raised on the appeal from the order dated February 8, 2011, are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (see CPLR 5501[a][1]).

In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the attorney 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 the plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages (see Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442). Here, the defendants Roberta S. Schechter, as executor of the estate of Donald Schechter, and Donald Schechter, P.C. (hereinafter together the Schechter defendants), satisfied their prima facie burden of establishing their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the causes of action alleging legal malpractice. In opposition thereto, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Natale v Samel & Assoc., 308 AD2d 568, 569; Schadoff v Russ, 278 AD2d 222, 223).

As for the remaining causes of action, the Schechter defendants also made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment in their favor, in response to which the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see generally Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562).

The plaintiff failed to set forth any proof of the Supreme Court’s bias or prejudice which would support recusal (see Walter v Walter, 62 AD3d 787, 788).

The Supreme Court properly imposed a sanction upon the plaintiff for his frivolous conduct in connection with his motion, inter alia, for leave to reargue his opposition to the Schechter defendants’ motion, among other things, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, as the plaintiff’s motion was completely without merit in law and was undertaken primarily to harass Roberta S. Schechter (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1).

Finally, while public policy mandates free access to the courts, "when a litigant is abusing the judicial process by hagriding [sic] individuals solely out of ill will or spite, equity may enjoin such vexatious litigation’" (Matter of Simpson v Ptaszynska, 41 AD3d 607, 608, quoting Matter of Shreve v Shreve, 229 AD2d 1005, 1006 [internal quotation marks omitted]). Here, the Supreme Court properly directed the plaintiff to seek leave of the "appropriate Administrative Justice or Judge" before filing any additional actions against the Schechter defendants (see Matter of Simpson v Ptaszynska, 41 AD3d at 608; Matter of Pignataro v Davis, 8 AD3d 487, 489). "

The attorney has died, and the legal malpractice case continues.  In Leon Petroleum, LLC v Carl S. Levine & Assoc., P.C.  2012 NY Slip Op 32913(U)  December 5, 2012  Supreme Court, Suffolk County  Docket Number: 08-36154  Judge: Daniel Martin the result turns on what an expert may say in a summary judgment affidavit.

Plaintiff successfully contracts to buy a large number of gas stations.  Prior to the contract NYS had condemned three of the stations, and an award was won, but not yet paid.  Who would get the award, buyer or seller?

"This action was commenced to recover damages allegedly sustained by the plaintiffs as the result of the failure of the defendant Carl S. Levine, Esq., Deceased (Levine) to properly draft a contract clause ensuring that the plaintiffs would receive the payment of monies due from the State of New York regarding the condemnation of portions of gas stations which the plaintiff was in the process of purchasing.

At his deposition, Leon testified that he is the managing member of LPL, which owns and leases
gas stations. that he oversees the company’s litigation, and that he oversaw the action  commenced by LPL against Tartan to recover the unpaid condemnation awards. He stated that LPL was formed to obtain Tartan’s assets. that he believed that LPL signed a written retainer with Levine in 1997 or 1998 in which Levine agreed to represent LPL in the purchase of Tartan’s assets, and that he had not seen the retainer for many years. In August 1999, LPL acquired the assets of Tartan, including three gas stations which had been previously condemned by New York State (the State). He was led to believe that the Contract of Sale between I,PL and Tartan protected LPL‘s right to acquire the unpaid awards due from the State after the closing under the contract. He indicated that, during the contract negotiations, he spoke with Levine in the late winter/early spring of 1998 about the unpaid awards.

Having established their entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint against
them, it is incumbent upon the plaintiffs to produce evidence in admissible form sufficient to require a trial of the material issues of fact (Roth v Barreto, supra; Rebecchi v Whitmore, supra; O’Neill v Fishkill. supra). In opposition to the motion, the plaintiffs submit, among other things, an affidavit from an expert witness, copies of three briefs submitted in an appeal filed by Tartan in the action brought against it by LPL, and the deposition testimony of Levine. It is well settled that the statements of a decedent are not rendered inadmissible under the “Dead Man’s Statute” (see CPLR 45 19) when offered in opposition to a motion for summary judgment (see Phillips v Kantor & Co., 3 1 NY2d 307, 338 NYS2d 882 [ 972); Miller v Lu-Whitney, 61 AD3d 1043,  [3d Dept 2009); Lauriello v Gallotta, 59 AD3d 497, 873 NYS2d 690 [2d Dept 2009); Rosado v Kulsakdinun, 32 AD3d 282,, 820 NYS2d 239 [1st Dept 2006); McEvoy v Garcia.114 AD2d 401,494 NYS2d 125 [2d Dept 1985) Friedman v. Sills. 112 AD2d 343. 491 NYS2d 794 [2d Dept 1985).

The plaintiffs submit an expert opinion indicating that Levine clearly departed from the minimum standards of care, skill, knowledge and diligence commonly possessed by the legal profession
when he relied on section 1.O1 of the Contract of Sale to ensure that the unpaid awards would be
conveyed to LPL. In his affidavit dated June 11, 2012, Joseph N. Campolo, Esq. (Campolo) swears that section 1.01 was ambiguous as to whether the parties to the Contract of Sale intended for LPL to receive the condemnation awards, that the Blumberg form “purports to address only a condemnation between point of contract signature and closing …,” and that there should have been specific language regarding the pre-contract takings. He states that Levine’s failure left LPL vulnerable to Tartan’s arguments in the litigation between LPL and Tartan, resulting in the settlement of that action. Campolo concludes by stating “Accordingly, assuming that it was [Levine’s] intent to obtain those condemnation awards for his client (and both Mr. Levine’s and Mr. Leon [sic] depositions establish that it was) I do believe that Mr. Levine was negligent in relying on Section 1.01 and not insisting on specific language related to those awards.
It is well settled that the opinion testimony of an expert “must be based on facts in the record or
personally known to the witness” (see Hambsch v New York City Tr. Auth., 63 NY2d 723,480 NY S2d 195 [1984] citing Cassano v Hagstrom, 5 NY2d 643,646, 187 NYS2d 1 [1959]; Shi Pei Fang v Hang Sang Realty Cory., 38 AD3d 520, 835 NYS2d 194 [2d Dept 2007]; Santoni v Bertelsmann Property, Inc., 21 AD3d 712, 800 NYS2d 676 [1st Dept 2005]). An expert “may not reach a conclusion by assuming material facts not supported by the evidence, and may not guess or speculate in drawing a conclusion” (see Shi Pei Fang v Hang Sang Realty Corp, supra). Here, Campolo has failed to address the testimony of all of the witness, including Leon, which indicate that the issue of the condemnation awards was intentionally avoided by LPL and its counsel. Neither does Campolo address the impact on the negotiations between LPL and Tartan if specific language had been requested, and whether Levine’s alleged failure was the proximate cause of any damages suffered by LPL. A review of the plaintiffs’ submission in the light most favorable to them reveals that they have failed to raise an issue of fact requiring a trial in this action. Mere conclusions and unsubstantiated allegations are insufficient to raise any triable issues of fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557,427 NYS2d 595 [1980]; Perez v Grace Episcopal Church, 6 AD3d 596. 774 NYS2d 785 (2d Dept 2004]; Rebecchi v Whitmore. supra)."