Now that Urias v. Buttafuoco, has been decided by the Court of Appeals would Gelwan v De Ratafia 2023 NY Slip Op 32953(U) August 25, 2023 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 654525/2016 Judge: David B. Cohen have been decided differently as to the Judiciary Law 487 claim? In Urias, the Court of Appeals held ” Not only does the text of the provision suggest that a plenary action is available in all instances of attorney deceit, but section 487’s long lineage also confirms that conclusion. The cause of action was descended from the first Statute of Westminster adopted in Engl ..read more

Jones Law Firm, P.C. v J Synergy Green, Inc. 2024 NY Slip Op 31127(U) April 2, 2024 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 653730/2023 Judge: Lyle E. Frank illustrates the principle that while there may be a Code of Professional Conduct violation, there must be a proximate connection with pecuniary damages to accompany and be cause by that violation. “The underlying action arises out of allegations that defendant/third-party plaintiff failed to pay plaintiffs legal fees as required by its engagement agreement. The third-party action and counterclaims arise out of the plaintiff ..read more

Under CPLR 214-6, and according to the ensuing court decisions, any claim against an attorney, whether purely in contract, in fraud or for professional negligence is subject to a 3-year statute of limitations. This legislative fix took place after the Court of Appeals permitted a 6-year statute of limitations in contract claims. For architects, it is different, as seen in Apollo Elec., Inc. v Aman Devs. LLC 2023 NY Slip Op 33466(U) October 5, 2023 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 155250/2019 Judge: Debra A. James. ” As for the first cause of action sounding in breach of ..read more

It’s unusual to see a firm like Marcum LLP suing its attorneys. In this particular setting, the claim was rejected by the Appellate Division. In Marcum LLP v L’Abbate, Balkan, Colavita & Contini, L.L.P. 2023 NY Slip Op 06443 [222 AD3d 486] December 14, 2023 Appellate Division, First Department the accounting firm claimed that its defense lawyers were negligent. “Supreme Court correctly concluded that defendants, L’Abbate, Balkan, Colavita & Contini, L.L.P. (LBCC) and Marianne S. Conklin, who represented plaintiff in an underlying action alleging accounting malpractice, among other thin ..read more

Serafini Releasing LLC v Gray 2024 NY Slip Op 30863(U) March 13, 2024 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 655579/2021 Judge: Melissa A. Crane is that rare New York legal malpractice case arising out of the making of a film. Here, Plaintiff has several scenarios at play against the attorney and, in the last reel, loses all. “In this action, plaintiff Serafini Releasing, LLC (“plaintiff” or “Serafini”), a New Yark based film production and distribution company, originally alleged that defendant Jonathan Gray (“Gray”), an attorney, and his law firm, defendant Gray Krauss Strat ..read more

The now bankrupt defendant in a personal injury case is suing her insurance carrier and her defense attorney after they failed to settle the case once summary judgment had been awarded to the injured party in Pergament v Government Empls. Ins. Co. (“GEICO”) 2024 NY Slip Op 01568 Decided on March 20, 2024 Appellate Division, Second Department. The motion was mostly denied. “The defendant Government Employees Insurance Company (“GEICO”) (hereinafter Geico) retained the defendants Picciano & Scahill, LLP, and Gilbert J. Hardy (hereinafter together the law firm defendants) to represent Melissa ..read more

Sebco Dev., Inc. v Siegel & Reiner, LLP 2024 NY Slip Op 50292(U) Decided on March 20, 2024 Supreme Court, Bronx County Gomez, J. is the kind of legal malpractice case that comes up often enough to support the idea that real estate in NYC is a paramount, driving economic force, and that the extensive lawyering necessary results in many legal malpractice cases. The case is fantastically fact-driven, and the decision is almost appellate in depth. It is impossible to summarize for a blog, but it is definitely worth reading completely for the definitions, the explanations and the discussion of ..read more

The Court of Appeals addresses Judiciary Law 487 questions infrequently, and each of its decisions tends to be broadly transformative. Urias v Daniel P. Buttafuoco & Assoc., PLLC 2024 NY Slip Op 01497 Decided on March 19, 2024 Court of Appeals Halligan, J. is no exception. It harmonizes and simplifies one of the major embellishments that have been woven into the statute over the years, and permits plenary actions for any Judiciary Law 487 claim going forward. “Judiciary Law § 487 provides that “[a]n attorney or counselor[ ] . . . guilty of any deceit or collusion, . . . with intent to dece ..read more

Musial v Donohue 2024 NY Slip Op 01414 Decided on March 15, 2024 Appellate Division, Fourth Department is a law school example of the territorial effect of jurisdiction and due process. A Texas law firm prosecutes a Texas motor vehicle accident in Texas, and is not subject to a New York legal malpractice case for that work. “Memorandum: Plaintiffs, who reside in New York, commenced this breach of contract and legal malpractice action against Texas attorney Russell Button, Esq., and his law firm, the Button Law Firm, PLLC (collectively, Button defendants), as well as New York attorneys David C ..read more

Salus v Berke 2023 NY Slip Op 06183 [221 AD3d 1390] November 30, 2023 Appellate Division, Third Department is a case in which Plaintiff claims that the lawfirm took a fee on a recovery for which there should have been no fee. It made a Judiciary Law 487 claim which was dismissed. This case is similar in some ways to an as-yet undecided Court of Appeals case, Urias v. Buttafuoco Assc. “Plaintiff Gregory J. Salus is the beneficiary of the residuary clause of the will of his mother (hereinafter decedent), and plaintiff Robert Russo is the executor of the estates of decedent and her husband. Salus ..read more