Legal Malpractice Law Review : Professional Responsibility Case Summaries & Commentary : Bennett J. Wasserman : LegalMalpractice.com : Lawyer Malpractice & Legal Ethics

Phillips v. Moran & Kufta, P.C., 53 A.D.3d 1044, 862 N.Y.S.2d 875 (2008)

NY: Underlying personal injury claim against municipality

Student Contributor: Michael Park

Facts: The plaintiff retained attorney in an underlying personal injury claim which occurred on municipal property. Attorney failed to commence an action against the municipality and also failed to make an application for leave to serve a late notice of claim against the municipality. Attorney made a motion for summary judgment and the trial court denied it. The attorney then appealed.

Issue: Was the motion for summary judgment properly denied?

Ruling: Yes. In affirming the decision by the Supreme Court, Monroe County, the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department held for the plaintiff for the following reasons:
1) The Court relied on the decision in Ippolito v. McCormack, Damiani, Lowe & Mellon, 265 A.D.2d 303, 696 N.Y.S.2d 203 and ruled that it is the burden of the defendant in bringing the motion for summary judgment to show that the plaintiff is unable to prove at least one of the elements of their legal malpractice claim, of which elements are:
1. the defendant attorney failed to exercise that degree of care, skill, and diligence commonly possessed by a member of the legal community
2. proximate cause
3. damages
4. the plaintiff would have been successful in the underlying action had the attorney exercised due care

2) Defendant failed to meet their burden and actually raised a triable issue of fact on “whether discretionary leave to file a late notice of claim...would have been available”.

Lesson: The defendant in a legal malpractice case needn't disprove every element of the plaintiff's case. Rather, they just need to establish that at least one of the elements cannot be proven by the plaintiff. In creating a triable issue of fact, the defendant actually helped the plaintiff by showing that a trial would be required to see if the plaintiff could have been successful in the underlying action.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Gamer v. Ross, 2008 NY Slip Op. 2107 (App Div. 2d Dept)

NY: Underlying personal injury action; missing discovery causes summary judgment dismissing complain

Student Contributor: Josh Aronson

Facts: In the underlying case, the plaintiff was injured when he tripped and fell over wires and debris while roller skating on a public sidewalk adjacent to a construction site. The plaintiffs retained the defendants to commence a negligence action against the owner of the construction site as well as a contractor who had performed construction work on the site. Both of the plaintiff’s complaints were dismissed on summary judgment and motion to dismiss respectively. The plaintiff then brought action against the defendant to recover damages for legal malpractice, alleging that the defendants were negligent in their handling of the two underlying actions by failing to conduct proper discover that would have enabled them to successfully oppose the summary judgment and motion to dismiss. The defendant claims that the plaintiffs could not have succeeded in the underlying actions because the wires and construction debris over which the plaintiff tripped were open and obvious conditions that were not inherently dangerous. Furthermore, the defendant contends that the plaintiffs could not have succeeded in the underlying actions because they failed to adduce any evidence showing that the landowner of the construction site or its contractor caused or created the alleged dangerous condition.

Issue: Must the defendant in a legal malpractice action establish that their negligence would not have prevented the dismissal of the plaintiffs underlying actions?

Ruling: Yes. The court found that the landowner and its contractor would have had sufficient notice of the dangerous condition and therefore would have been liable for injuries resulting from its failure to correct the danger. As a result, the Court found that the burden was on the defendants in the malpractice action to establish that the missing discovery—which they failed to do, would not have prevented the dismissal of underlying actions.

Lesson: The defendant in a legal malpractice action must establish that “but for” the negligence claimed by the plaintiff, the outcome of the underlying action would not have changed.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Pechko v. Gendelman,  20 A.D.3d 404; 799 N.Y.S.2d 80 (2nd Dept. 2005)

NY Underlying Medical Malpractice Action

Student Contributor: Natalie Resto

Facts: The plaintiff underwent a mammogram while a patient with Doctor #1, who, she claimed, told her that the mammogram was normal. Later that year she underwent a mammogram with Doctor #2 and was diagnosed with cancer. The surgeon recalled seeing in the first mammogram certain “micro-calcifications” that were “suspicious of cancer.” The plaintiff sued Doctor #1 for medical malpractice. During the course of representation, the attorney who was representing her forwarded the mammogram films to a radiologist for evaluation, who before the evaluation misplaced them. The plaintiff then retained an appellate law firm to represent her in the medical malpractice action. Doctor  #1 moved for summary judgment arguing that the films constituted key evidence, and that the loss of that evidence irreparably prejudiced his ability to defend the action. The lower court granted the doctor’s summary judgment because the plaintiff failed to counter the motion with expert affidavits sufficient to create issues of fact. The plaintiff then brought this action against the law firm to recover damages for legal malpractice for failing to properly defend her against the summary judgment motion in the medical malpractice action.  The law firm argued that because it was not responsible for the loss of the mammogram film, which occurred before it was retained, its negligence was not the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s damages. The law firm moved for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The lower court denied it and the law firm appealed.

Issue: Was the law firm negligent in its representation of the plaintiffs in a medical malpractice action?

Ruling: Yes. The court found that the motion was properly denied because the absence of the mammogram films did not require the conclusion that the plaintiff would be unable to establish the law firm’s negligence. Here the firm did not rebut the plaintiff’s claim that they were negligent in failing to obtain secondary evidence concerning the films.

Lesson: Even when a court’s determination in an underlying medical malpractice action may be read as holding that the plaintiff will be unable to establish the merits of the medical malpractice action, that determination should not be given collateral estoppel effect against the plaintiff when he or she has alleged that the determination in the underlying action was the result of his or her attorney’s negligence.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link