Were we able to predict the future, we would be betting on further proceedings after the decision in CRP/Extell Parcel I, L.P. v Cuomo; 2012 NY Slip Op 50073(U) ; Decided on January 19, 2012
Supreme Court, New York County; Singh, J.  Here are the facts as set forth by Justice Singh.
 

"Petitioner CRP/Extell Parcel I, L.P. ("CRP/Extell") challenges the determinations issued by respondent, the Attorney General of the State of New York, ordering petitioner to return $16 million dollars in down payments to the purchasers of forty condominium units in a new [*2]construction on the West Side of Manhattan.

Petitioner is the developer of The Rushmore, a newly constructed luxury condominium located at 80 Riverside Boulevard. The condominium development offering plan was made in 2006 and 2007. The co-respondents are individual condominium purchasers ("purchasers") who entered into agreements with petitioner to buy condos.  CRP/Extell submitted its proposed plan to the Attorney General’s Office on November 29, 2005. Thereafter, the Attorney General issued deficiency comments to the sponsor’s outside counsel which is also the escrow agent in this matter, the law firm of Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP (hereinafter "Stroock"). The ongoing review process began, sets of revisions were submitted by petitioner’s attorneys and the Attorney General reviewed and commented on such revisions.

On August 11, 2006, petitioner’s plan was accepted for filing by the Attorney General’s Office. CRP/Extell then began offering condominium units for sale.

Between 2006 and 2008, the forty individuals named as co-respondents in this proceeding entered into purchase agreements with petitioner. The purchase agreements incorporated by reference CRP/Extell’s offering plan. The offering plan identified the commencement date for the first year of operations in the building. The projected first closing date was September 1, 2008.

In accordance with the agreements, purchasers tendered down payments to CRP/Extell. [*3]The down payments were all placed in escrow subject to 13 NYCRR section 20.3(o) in accordance with the offering plan.

The aggregate amount of the down payments paid by the purchasers is $16 million dollars. The properties are valued collectively at over $110 million dollars.

Section 20.3(o)(12) of the regulations required CRP/Extell to offer purchasers a right to rescind if the first closing in the building was delayed twelve (12) months beyond the anticipated commencement of the first year of operations. CRP/Extell was required, therefore, to offer purchasers a right to rescind if the first closing did not occur by September 1, 2009.

The offering plan contains a provision stating as follows:

It is anticipated that the First Closing will occur by the commencement date for the First Year of Condominium Operation as set forth in Schedule B which is September 1, 2008. If the First Closing does not occur by September 1, 2008, as such date may be extended by duly filed amendment to the Plan, Sponsor will amend the Plan to update the budget and to offer Purchasers the right to rescind their Agreements within fifteen (15) days after the presentation of the amendment disclosing the updated budget, and any Purchaser electing rescission will have their Deposits and any interest earned thereon returned.

It is undisputed that the offering plan was drafted by CRP/Extell’s counsel. Petitioner contends that the attorney who drafted the offering plan erroneously typed an "8" (September 1, 2008) instead of a "9" (September 1, 2009) in the above provision.

There is a heavy presumption that a deliberately prepared and executed written instrument accurately reflects the true intention of the parties. To overcome this presumption and warrant a trial on a claim for reformation, the plaintiff must come forth with a high level of proof, free of contradiction or equivocation, that the instrument is not written as intended by both parties. The party seeking reformation bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the instrument is not correct due to an error in the reduction of the agreement to writing, or that it was executed under mutual mistake or unilateral mistake coupled with fraud. This means that the plaintiff must show, in no uncertain terms, not only that mistake or fraud exists, but also exactly what the parties agreed upon, particularly if the negotiations were conducted by sophisticated, counseled people.
 

For the above reasons, the application to vacate the determination of the Attorney General’s Office is denied, and the Article 78 proceeding is dismissed, and it is further
 

ORDERED that petitioner CRP/Extell Parcel I, L.P., and Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, the escrow agent, are directed to release and return the down payments, together with any accumulated interest, to the individual purchasers within 30 days of receipt of this decision and order; and it is further

ORDERED that the respondent individual purchasers are awarded their costs and expenses in defending this proceeding.

 

 

Plaintiff is involved in an assault and battery, and then spends the next umpteen years litigating the case, suing his attorney, relitigating the case, suing the police department, suing his attorney once again.  It all ends in his being enjoined from suing again without court approval.  Only in a pro-se world could this happen.

InBanushi v Epstein ;2012 NY Slip Op 30123(U); ; January 11, 2012; Sup Ct, NY County; Docket Number: 402693/10; Judge: Doris Ling-Cohan

"In May, 1998, Banushi hired Epstein to litigate a case that was already in progress.  The case was based on Banushi’s allegations that he had been assaulted and battered ("the assault case").  At least six (6) cases have been commenced by Banushi related to such alleged assault/battery, including his claims based upon the alleged lack of effective legal representation that he received in litigating the assault case and not including a disciplinary complaint filed against defendants which was dismissed.

Epstein proceeded to represent Banushi in the assault case.  the relationship between client and attorney did not fare well, resulting in Epstein filing a motion to withdraw as counsel, which was granted, prior to the case going to trial.

Epstein alleges that the assault case was ready for trial when he withdrew and that he believes Banushi did not retain new counsel and tried the assault case pro se. After trial, a verdict was rendered in favor of the defendants. Banushi appealed the verdict, which was affirmed and he was denied leave to appeal that decision  Court of Appeals. In 2001, Banushi brought an action for legal malpractice against Epstein in Civil Court Kings County (“the 2001 case”), which resulted in a trial and a judgment in Epstein’s favor.  In 2003, Banushi lodged a complaint against Epstein with the Disciplinary Committee, First Department which, according to Epstein, was summarily dismissed. In 2006, in the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, Banushi! the City of New York and a New York City police officer alleging that the New York City  Police Department
(NYPD) failed to provide him with a proper report of the assault, thus ability to litigate the assault case. The court determined that the federal and state were time barred and granted summary judgment dismissing the claims.

Thus, defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted and the cross motion to further amend the complaint is denied. The balance of Epstein’s motion is denied, except that Banushi is enjoined from commencing any further lawsuits or making any motions, unless he is represented by counsel if unrepresented, without prior court approval and a copy of this decision shall be provide
such application (see Sibersky v Winters, 42 AD3d 402,404 [lst’ Dept 2007).

 

Attorneys automatically obtain a charging lien by commencing an action. There are several ways to lose that lien. One is to be terminated "for cause" and another is to withdraw voluntarily. This is different from being "consented out" or by withdrawing with mutual consent. In Nassour v Lutheran Med. Ctr. ;2010 NY Slip Op 07906 ; ;Appellate Division, Second Department we see the difference:
 

"Pursuant to Judiciary Law § 475, "[w]hen an action is commenced, the attorney appearing for a party obtains a lien upon his or her client’s causes of action . . . This lien attaches to any final order [*2]or settlement in the client’s favor" (Matter of Wingate, Russotti & Shapiro, LLP v Friedman, Khafif & Assoc., 41 AD3d 367, 370). "Where an attorney’s representation terminates upon mutual consent, and there has been no misconduct, no discharge for just cause, and no unjustified abandonment by the attorney, the attorney maintains his or her right to enforce the statutory lien" (Lansky v Easow, 304 AD2d 533, 534; see Klein v Eubank, 87 NY2d 459; cf. Matter of Winston, 214 AD2d 677). Where, however, an attorney withdraws without sufficient cause, his or her lien is automatically forfeited (see Hae Sook Moon v City of New York, 255 AD2d 292; Winters v Rise Steel Erection Corp., 231 AD2d 626). Here, Freedhand was not discharged by the plaintiff, but instead voluntarily withdrew. Since Freedhand failed to establish that there was just cause for his withdrawal, the Supreme Court should have vacated that portion of the judicial hearing officer’s determination that Freedhand was entitled to a fee (cf. Robinson v Friedman Mgt. Corp., 49 AD3d 436; Winters v Rise Steel Erection Corp., 231 AD2d 626). "
 

The attorney-client privilege, known to almost all, is a wide-ranging, often applied stricture.  An attorney is not required to disclose communications with a client concerning the representation…almost ever.  There are exceptions, and the one most likely to pop up comes in legal malpractice litigation.  Communications between plaintiff and defendant is (almost) never privileged.  What of communication between plaintiff and subsequent attorneys, who are not sued by plaintiff?

In Soussis v Lazer, Aptheker, Rosella & Yedid, P.C. ;  2012 NY Slip Op 00357 ;  Decided on January 17, 2012 ;  Appellate Division, Second Department we see one such situation.  Here, third-party defendant was not sued by plaintiff and is asked to disclose communications.

 "A waiver of the attorney-client privilege may be found where the client places the subject matter of the privileged communication in issue or where invasion of the privilege is required to determine the validity of the client’s claim or defense and application of the privilege would deprive the adversary of vital information (see Hurrell-Harring v State of New York, 75 AD3d 667, 668; 601 Realty Corp. v Conway, Farrell, Curtin & Kelly, P.C., 74 AD3d 1179, 1179; Raphael v Clune White & Nelson, 146 AD2d 762, 763; Jakobleff v Cerrato, Sweeney & Cohn, 97 AD2d 834, 835). Moreover, a waiver may be found where a party engages in selective disclosure, "as a party may not rely on the protection of the privilege regarding damaging communications while disclosing other self-serving communications" (Village Bd. of Vil. of Pleasantville v Rattner, 130 AD2d 654, 655).

Contrary to the contention of the defendants third-party plaintiffs, under the circumstances presented, the plaintiff did not place the subject matter of the subject e-mail communications in issue and application of the privilege will not deprive them of vital information in defense of her claims. Nor is disclosure of the subject e-mails required under the doctrine of selective disclosure (cf. Orco Bank v Proteinas Del Pacifico, 179 AD2d 390, 390; Village Bd. of Vil. [*2]of Pleasantville v Rattner, 130 AD2d at 655). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the motion of the defendants third-party plaintiffs to compel the third-party defendant to produce certain e-mail communications withheld from disclosure on the ground that they were protected by the attorney-client privilege.

 

Attorneys make mistakes.  Sometimes mistakes are fixes, sometimes not.  Rarely do attorneys go to the length of fabricating complaints, making up stories of ongoing litigation and then running away from the disciplinary committee.  We don’t know what defense the attorney might offer, but this tale is both sad and shocking. The attorney in Matter of Gold; Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District ; Motion No: 2011-06543  ;  Slip Opinion No: 2012 NY Slip Op 61346(U)
Decided on January 17, 2012 ; Appellate Division, Second Department, Motion Decision  is now suspended.
 

"We find, prima facie, that the respondent is guilty of professional misconduct immediately threatening the public interest based upon his failure to cooperate with the lawful demands of the Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District (hereinafter the Grievance Committee), with respect to its investigation of one complaint of professional misconduct.

On or about December 6, 2010, the Grievance Committee received a complaint against the respondent submitted by Paul Niehaus, on behalf of his client, David Goldstein. The complaint alleged that the respondent represented Mr. Goldstein in a matter entitled Goldstein v Massachusetts Mutual Insurance Company, commenced in the Supreme Court, New York County, under Index No. 113804/99. Mr. Goldstein, the plaintiff, sought, inter alia, declaratory relief that "the requirement in his disability policy that he be under a doctor’s care and that monthly reports be submitted be deemed waived by defendant." By order dated May 3, 2000, the Supreme Court dismissed the complaint.

On or about February 2, 2005, the respondent commenced another action entitled Goldstein v. Massachusetts Mutual Insurance Company, in the Supreme Court, New York County, under Index No. 2515/05. The verified complaint, dated February 1, 2005, sought a declaratory judgment based, in sum and substance, on the same allegations previously alleged. By order dated August 22, 2005, the court found that the action was barred based on res judicata, as well as the applicable statute of limitations, and the matter was dismissed.

From in or about 2001 through in or about 2006, the respondent allegedly engaged in misleading and deceitful conduct by permitting his client, David Goldstein, to believe that the respondent had commenced a new action on Mr. Goldstein’s behalf in 2001 (hereinafter the purported 2001 action) when, in fact, no new action had been commenced after dismissal of the first action until the commencement of the 2005 action. In response to an inquiry from David Goldstein regarding the purported 2001 action, the respondent, on or about October 29, 2004, forwarded to him copies of a purported amended summons and a purported amended verified complaint, dated November 3, 2003, and on or about January 6, 2006, forwarded to him copies of a purported summons and a purported verified complaint, dated February 12, 2001. None of those pleadings were filed. In response to another inquiry from David Goldstein regarding the purported 2001 action, the respondent, on or about May 3, 2006, forward to him copies of a purported notice of deposition and a purported verified answer, dated April 27, 2001, allegedly submitted by Michael Yoelli, of, Assail & Yoelli, LLP, on behalf of Massachusetts Mutual Insurance Company. Neither the purported notice of deposition, nor the purported verified answer, had been created, prepared or served by Michael Yoelli.

Based on the foregoing, David Goldstein commenced an action against the respondent, on or about December 20, 2006, entitled Goldstein v Gold, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, under Index No. CV-06-6707, alleging, inter alia, that the respondent had engaged in fraud and legal malpractice. In a Final Judgment by Consent dated November 4, 2010, the respondent consented to the entry of a judgment against him in the amount of $250,000.

By letter dated December 13, 2010, mailed to 5535 42nd Terrace, Vero Beach, Florida 32967 (the business address listed for the respondent with the Office of Court Administration at that time), the Grievance Committee asked the respondent to submit a written answer to the Goldstein complaint. By letter dated December 27, 2010, the respondent submitted an answer and response to a background questionaire. The answer contained another address for the respondent, to wit, P.O. Box 700148, Wabasso, Florida 32970, and the background questionnaire stated that the respondent’s home address was 5535 42nd Terrace, Vero Beach, Florida 32970.

The respondent has neither opposed the Grievance Committee’s motion nor submitted a any response relative thereto."

Based upon the foregoing, the motion is granted, the respondent is immediately suspended from the practice of law, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.4(l)(1)(i), pending further order of this Court, the Grievance Committee is authorized to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding against him, and the matter is referred to a Special Referee to hear and report.

 

Commencement of a new case and the service of process are anachronistic to New York, and provide a wealth of potential problems for the experienced practitioner.  Imagine how confusing it is to the pro-se plaintiff.  In any event, were one to query a group of experienced attorneys, we predict that a shockingly large number would have trouble correctly explaining CPLR 306-b.

So, Henneberry v Borstein ; 2012 NY Slip Op 00235 ; Decided on January 17, 2012 ;Appellate Division, First Department provides a splendid primer in the area.  Plaintiff pro-se started an action, hired a process server, had some problems with service, started a second action, and in the end everything was dismissed.  Here is how the AD settled the issue:
 

"The unintended effect of the disposition of the first two orders appealed from was to deprive plaintiff of an opportunity to pursue her timely filed lawsuit, based entirely upon her failure to effectively complete the ministerial act of properly serving defendants within 120 days of the filing of notice. This was error.

CPLR 306-b provides, as relevant:

"Service of the summons and complaint, summons with notice, . . . shall be made within one hundred twenty days after the filing of the summons and complaint, summons with notice, . . . . If service is not made upon a defendant within the time period provided in this section, the court, upon motion, shall dismiss the action without prejudice as to that defendant, or upon good cause shown or in the interest of justice, extend the time for service."

The statute requires that a defendant challenging service move to dismiss on that ground (Daniels v King Chicken & Stuff, Inc., 35 AD3d 345 [2006]). In deciding such a motion, the express language of CPLR 306-b gives the court two options: dismiss the action without prejudice; or extend the time for service in the existing action. Here, defendants made their motions after the statute of limitations had expired. In these circumstances, the court’s options were limited to [*3]either dismissing the action outright, or extending the time for plaintiff to properly effect service.
The first order appealed from dismissed the action, without prejudice to the filing of a new action, and granted plaintiff’s cross motion for an extension of time to effect service. This directive was internally inconsistent, and it led plaintiff to file the 2010 action, later dismissed as untimely (Matter of Rodamis v Cretan’s Assn Omonoia, 22 AD3d 859, 860 [2005] [court cannot grant CPLR 306-b extension where action has been dismissed and statute of limitations has expired]; see Sottile v Islandia Home for Adults, 278 AD2d 482, 484 [2000]). The court should have limited its ruling in the first order on appeal to granting plaintiff’s cross motion for an extension of time to effect service pursuant to CPLR 306-b (see Lippett v Education Alliance, 14 AD3d 430, 431 [2005]).

CPLR 306-b authorizes an extension of time for service in two discrete situations: "upon good cause shown" or "in the interest of justice" (Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d 95, 104-106 [2001]). The Court of Appeals has confirmed that the "good cause" and "interest of justice" prongs of the section constitute separate grounds for extensions, to be defined by separate criteria (id. at 104). The Court stated,

"Our analysis is buttressed by an examination of the legislative history behind the amendment [to CPLR 306-b]. The New York State Bar Associations Commercial and Federal Litigation Section Committee on Civil Practice Law and Rules characterized the interest of justice standard as more flexible’ than the good cause standard, specifically noting that [s]ince the term "good cause" does not include conduct usually characterized as "law office failure," proposed CPLR 306-b provides for an additional and broader standard, i.e., the "interest of justice," to accommodate late service that might be due to mistake, confusion or oversight, so long as there is no prejudice to the defendant’".

(id. at 104-105 [emphasis added]). A "good cause" extension requires a showing of reasonable diligence in attempting to effect service upon a defendant. At least one Appellate Division decision has suggested that good cause is likely to be found where "the plaintiff’s failure to timely serve process is a result of circumstances beyond [its] control" (Bumpus v New York City Tr. Auth., 66 AD3d 26, 32 [2009] [noting difficulties of service with person in military or difficulties with service abroad through Hague Convention]).
Even if this case does not qualify for an extension under the "good cause" exception (see Mead v Singleman, 24 AD3d 1142, 1144 [2005]), we find that it qualifies under the "interest of justice" category. Under this prong of CPLR 306-b, the Court of Appeals has instructed that a court "may consider [plaintiff’s] diligence, or lack thereof, along with any other relevant factor . . ., including expiration of the Statute of Limitations, the meritorious nature of the cause of action, the length of delay in service, the promptness of a plaintiff’s request for the extension of time, and prejudice to defendant" (Leader, 97 NY2d at 105-106).

Here, plaintiff’s attempted March 2008 service, although ultimately deemed defective, was a diligent attempt by a pro se plaintiff to hire a process server to serve defendants at their law firm, within 120 days of the timely filing of a summons with notice. By the time the court ruled on the motions in the 2007 Action, the statute of limitations had expired, precluding the filing of a new action. In addition, defendants were aware of the 2007 Action and appeared to demand a complaint as early as April 2008 – they were not prejudiced by the service errors and were afforded full participation in discovery (see Spath v Zack, 36 AD3d 410, 413 [2007]). Finally, construing the pleading in the light most favorable to plaintiff, as is required on consideration of [*4]a CPLR 3211 motion to dismiss, we find that it asserts actions and omissions by defendants that support viable claims for recovery (see Leder v Spiegel, 31 AD3d 266 [2006], affd 9 NY3d 836 [2007], cert denied 552 US 1257 [2008]).

Khedouri v Equinox (73 AD3d 532 [2010]) and Shelkowitz v Rainess (57 AD3d 337 [2008]), cited by the defense in support of dismissing the action, are both distinguishable on their facts. In Khedouri, the court found that dismissal was warranted because plaintiff made no attempt to serve the defendant, a fitness corporation, within 120 days of filing the summons and complaint. In addition, this Court found no merit to the plaintiff’s underlying claims, given the voluntary assumption of risks inherent in fitness training (73 AD3d at 532-533). Similarly, dismissal was granted in Shelkowitz, a personal injury action involving the accumulation of snow and ice at the defendant’s building, where plaintiff made no attempt to serve the defendant within 120 days of the filing of the action, and the extension request was made 20 months after filing the complaint (57 AD2d at 337). Here, unlike both Khedouri and Shelkowitz, plaintiff attempted service within the 120-day period, defendants were aware of the action soon after the filing of the complaint, and, viewing the amended pleading in the light most favorable to plaintiff, we find it sets forth actionable claims (Spath v Zack, 36 AD3d 410 [2007], supra; Mead v Singleman, 24 AD3d 1142 [2005], supra; Lippett v Education Alliance, 14 AD3d 430 [2005], supra).

Granting plaintiff the opportunity to pursue this action is not only consistent with the "interest of justice" exception set forth in CPLR 306-b, but also with our strong interest in deciding cases on the merits where possible (see e.g. L-3 Communications Corp. v SafeNet, Inc., 45 AD3d 1 [2007]). Accordingly, given our conclusion that the 2007 Action qualified for an extension of time to effect service pursuant to CPLR 306-b, we reverse the third order appealed from and deem the complaint in the 2010 Action to be an amended complaint in the 2007 Action. "

 

Clients depend on attorneys to advise them on the law. Quick, what do you know about usury? Do you know enough competently to advise a client, or just enough to get yourself into trouble? Here is a legal malpractice story about the later.Theresa Striano Revocable Trust v Blancato 
71 AD3d 1122 ; Appellate Division, Second Department
 

Attorney is retained to perform two mortgage transactions, and notes that the interest rate is 17%. Usury, he wonders? He asks the borrower’s attorney, who tells him not to worry, its a commercial transaction. Naturally, it all falls apart soon enough.

"Before the closing documents were finalized, the defendant Richard T. Blancato, who was the plaintiffs’ attorney, observed that the 17% annual interest rate on the loans might be usurious under General Obligations Law § 5-501 and Banking Law § 14-a, which generally fix the maximum annual interest rate which may be charged for these types of transactions at 16%. He shared his concern with the borrower’s counsel, who assured him that the rate was not usurious because the loans were commercial in nature. Based on this explanation, the defendant was persuaded that no usury issue existed, and never notified Striano about the potential problem.
 

Here, the defendant’s reliance upon the advice of the borrower’s attorney reflects a failure to exercise ordinary reasonable skill (see Shopsin v Siben & Siben, 268 AD2d 578; McCoy v Tepper, 261 AD2d 592, 593; Logalbo v Plishkin, Rubano & Baum, 163 AD2d 511, 514). As the plaintiffs’ current counsel correctly notes, even a cursory review of the relevant statutes would have revealed that the proposed loans did not fall under any usury exceptions. Additionally, the defendant’s efforts to paint his actions in a favorable light are unavailing, as his recent averments directly contradict both his 2008 affirmation and the averments of Thomas Fatato, Striano’s brother, who submitted an affidavit on the defendant’s behalf (see Denicola v Costello, 44 AD3d 990; Telfeyan v City of New York, 40 AD3d 372, 373).

The defendant contends that Fatato ultimately was responsible for the decision to provide the loans despite the potential usury problem. Assuming, however, that Fatato acted as Striano’s agent and was aware of the borrower’s counsel’s advice (such that Fatato’s knowledge can be imputed to Striano), the defendant "may not shift to the client the legal responsibility [he] was specifically hired to undertake because of [his] superior knowledge" (Hart v Carro, Spanbock, Kaster & Cuiffo, 211 AD2d 617, 619).

Accordingly, the plaintiffs established, prima facie, that the defendant acted negligently with respect to the usury issue. Issues of fact exist, however, as to whether Striano was involved in certain decisions regarding the handling of the mortgage foreclosure actions filed against the borrower and, if so, whether those decisions constituted an intervening cause of the plaintiffs’ injuries (see Eisenberger v Septimus, 44 AD3d 994, 995; Brooks v Lewin, 21 AD3d 731, 734; Selletti v Liotti, 22 AD3d 739, 740; Blank v Harry Katz, P.C., 3 AD3d 512, 513). The Supreme Court’s denial of the plaintiffs’ motion was, therefore, proper. "
 

Big law firms take on big cases, and even bigger transactions.  One might read about a $ 50 Million dollar loan concerning a hospital.  One might have seen "Margin Call" and thought about how the sale of those securitized mortgages really takes place, and who checks the paperwork.  In Nomura Asset Capital Corp. v. Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, LLP.  we see what happens when things go wrong.

Nomura sued Cadwalader for its failure "to properly advise and represent " NACC and ASC in connection with the securitization of a pool of commercial mortgages and the issuance of a legal opinion stating that the resulting trust would qualify for federal income tax purposes as a real estate mortgage investment conduit (REMIC)"  Now, summary judgment has been denied to Cadwalader.

At issue was a $ 50 million loan made to Doctor’s Hospital of Hyde Park, Chicago.  "When the hospital subsequently went into bankruptcy and Nomura was sued by the trustee to force a repurchase of the loan, Nomura claims it was forced to settle the trustee’s lawsuit for millions of dollars and alleges that it would not have suffered these damages but for Cadwalader’s legal malpractice."

An appraisal of the hospital was performed, but the Cadwalader tax partner did not review the appraisal before signing the opinion letter.  Bankruptcy Court later determined that the hospital was insolvent on the date of the appraisal which valued it at $ 68 million.

Nomura settled cases against itself for $ 68 million and went on to sue Cadwalader.  After this latest round of motion practice, the remaining claims alleged that Cadwalader committed legal malpractice by failing to advise plaintiffs that appraisals of the collateral securing the mortgage loans had to separately value real property, and that there was a failure of due diligence.

 

Plaintiff’s mother  brought a personal injury case against the City of New York for plaintiff from an injury of December 20, 2002.  She retained defendant attorneys to represent her.  She discharged the attorneys via a "Consent to Change Attorneys" in August , 2006.  She brought the legal malpractice case Fleyshman v Suckle & Schlesinger, PLLC ; 2012 NY Slip Op 00176 ; Decided on January 10, 2012 ; Appellate Division, Second Department.  This case was dismissed on the statute of limitations.

"The Supreme Court erred in denying that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) to dismiss the first cause of action, alleging legal malpractice, as time-barred. The defendants sustained their initial burden by demonstrating, prima facie, that the alleged legal malpractice occurred more than three years before this action was commenced in May 2010 (see CPLR 214[6]; Rupolo v Fish, 87 AD3d 684, 685; Krichmar v Scher, 82 AD3d 1164, 1165). In response, the plaintiff failed to raise a question of fact as to whether the statute of limitations was [*2]tolled by the doctrine of continuous representation. All of the documentary evidence demonstrated that the relationship necessary to invoke the continuous representation doctrine terminated in August 2006, and the plaintiff’s submissions did not indicate that her trust and confidence in the defendants continued, or was restored, after that date (see Rupolo v Fish, 87 AD3d 684; Krichmar v Scher, 82 AD3d at 1165; Marro v Handwerker, Marchelos & Gayner, 1 AD3d 488; Piliero v Adler & Stavros, 282 AD2d 511, 512; Aaron v Roemer, Wallens & Mineaux, 272 AD2d 752, 754-755).

Moreover, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the second cause of action, which alleged a violation of Judiciary Law § 487. Even as amplified by the plaintiff’s affidavit, and according the plaintiff the benefit of every favorable inference (see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83), the complaint failed to allege that the defendants acted "with intent to deceive the court or any party" (Judiciary Law § 487[1]; see Jaroslawicz v Cohen, 12 AD3d 160, 160-161). Further, the plaintiff’s allegation that the defendants "willfully delayed [her] recovery with a view to their own ends and benefit" is a bare legal conclusion, "which is not entitled to the presumption of truth normally afforded to the allegations of a complaint" (Rozen v Russ & Russ, P.C., 76 AD3d 965, 969; see Judiciary Law § 487[2]). "

 

 

Last August we reported on the legal malpractice case which arose in California and made its way here.  "In this recurring situation, plaintiff has both a California and a NY connection, and hired an attorney to do some work, which eventually goes sour. Frequently a case like this comes up in the entertainment field, with its CA and NY roots. As an example, Basilotta v Warshavsky ; 2011 NY Slip Op 32185(U); August 2, 2011; Sup Ct, NY County; Docket Number: 115525/09; Judge: Paul Wooten shows how the short CA statute of limitations (1 year) undermines the longer NY statute (3 years).

"During the 1980’s plaintiff was a singer known for her popular 1982 song Hey Micky. At all relevant times she has been a California resident. In or about 2003, non party Fallon Inc produced a television commercial for the non-party Subway restaurant franchise that featured Micky without Plaintiff’s knowledge or consent. Subsequent to becoming aware of this commercial, plaintiff retained defendant Oren J. Warshavsky, who at the time worked at defendant law firm Gibbons, Del Deo, Dolan, Griffinger & Vecchione (“Gibbons”).’ Plaintiff alleges that she retained Warshavsky and Gibbons I) to seek compensation for the unauthorized use of Mickey in the commercial, and 2) to clarify her ownership rights to the Mickey master recordings. The retainer agreement between the parties was strictly contingency-fee based, and defines the scope of the retainer as “regarding all causes of action."

The gist of the legal malpractice case is that the attorneys got a settlement offer of $ 35,000 and when plaintiff did not accept, sent a letter to a successor attorney advising him of their position that, among other things, plaintiff had terminated her relationship with Gibbons in December, 2006.

The later legal malpractice case revolved around the ownership and exploitation of the master recordings and whether Gibbons was to blame for legal malpractice. Under CPLR 202, a cause of action accruing in a jurisdiction outside NY must be timely both in NY and in that other jurisdiction
 

Now, the Appellate Division has reversed and dismissed.  "Accepting the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint as true and resolving all inferences in her favor, as we must in considering a motion to dismiss (see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87 [1994]; Benn v Benn, 82 AD3d 548, 548 [2011]), this legal malpractice action accrued in California at the latest in November 2007, when plaintiff received defendants’ letter unequivocally informing her that they were no longer representing her or prosecuting her underlying actions. Accordingly, under California’s applicable one-year statute of limitations (Cal Code Civ Proc § 340.6[a]), this action, commenced in February 2010, is time-barred.

Contrary to the motion court’s finding, plaintiff’s assertion that it was not until October 2009 that she discovered that Radialchoice, the record company with whom she had held a recording contract, was involuntarily liquidated, did not raise an issue of fact as to whether this action is time-barred. Indeed, plaintiff’s allegation was asserted only in her memorandum of law in opposition to the motion, not in her pleadings or any accompanying affidavit (see Coppola v Applied Elec. Corp., 288 AD2d 41, 42 [2001]). Moreover, plaintiff’s alleged discovery is simply an additional facet of the same nonfeasance of which, according to her complaint, she had been aware since November 2007; thus, it does not constitute a separate wrongful act or omission for statute of limitations purposes (see Peregrine Funding, Inc. v Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, 133 Cal App 4th 658, 685, 35 Cal Rptr 3d 31, 51 [2005]).

Lastly, plaintiff’s allegations support the conclusion that she had inquiry notice of defendants’ alleged nonfeasance more than one year before commencing this action. Indeed, since January 2007, when plaintiff obtained her case files and observed that defendants had performed very little work on her underlying cases, she should have discovered, through the use [*2]of reasonable diligence, the facts supporting liability, including the fact that Radialchoice had been involuntary liquidated (see McGee v Weinberg, 97 Cal App 3d 798, 803, 159 Cal Rptr 86, 89-90 [1979]). "