Outlining the scope of an attorney’s retainer agreement is important. This sets forth the nature of the work to be rendered by an attorney on behalf of his client. In Attallah v Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, LLP, 2019 NY Slip Op 00583 [2d Dept Jan. 30, 2019], the court held:
An attorney may not be held liable for failing to act outside the scope of a retainer (seeAmBase Corp. v. Davis Polk & Wardwell, 8 N.Y.3d 428, 834 N.Y.S.2d 705, 866 N.E.2d 1033). Therefore, since the defendant’s alleged failure to negotiate with the school, its alleged failure to commence litigation against the school, and its alleged failure to properly advise the plaintiff on the efficacy of a defamation action against nonschool parties fell outside the scope of the parties’ letter of engagement, dismissal of the cause of action alleging legal malpractice was warranted, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1), on documentary evidence grounds.
In an action by a client against a law firm for legal malpractice, the appellate court reversed the court order dismissing the action on the law firm’s motion to dismiss. The court held:
“ To state a cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must allege: (1) that the attorney failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession; and (2) that the attorney’s breach of the duty proximately caused the plaintiff actual and ascertainable damages ” (Dempster v. Liotti, 86 A.D.3d 169, 176, 924 N.Y.S.2d 484 [internal quotation marks omitted]; seeLeder v. Spiegel, 9 N.Y.3d 836, 837, 840 N.Y.S.2d 888, 872 N.E.2d 1194). Here, accepting the facts alleged in the complaint as true, and according the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, the plaintiff stated a cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice (seeTooma v. Grossbarth, 121 A.D.3d at 1095–1096, 995 N.Y.S.2d 593; Endless Ocean, LLC v. Twomey, Latham, Shea, Kelley, Dubin & Quartararo, 113 A.D.3d 587, 589, 979 N.Y.S.2d 84; Reynolds v. Picciano, 29 A.D.2d 1012, 1012, 289 N.Y.S.2d 436). The evidentiary submissions did not establish that a material fact alleged in the complaint is not a fact at all and that no significant dispute exists regarding it (seeBodden v. Kean, 86 A.D.3d at 526, 927 N.Y.S.2d 137). Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the plaintiff was entitled to commence this legal malpractice action even though the underlying personal injury action was still pending, as the legal malpractice action accrued, at the latest, in November 2014 (seeJohnston v. Raskin, 193 A.D.2d 786, 787, 598 N.Y.S.2d 272).
The court reporting agency is in the business of making stenographic records of depositions and proceedings in litigation. A law firm ordered the services of the court reporting agency’s stenographers to take down witnesses’ testimony in various personal injury and medical malpractice cases.
The law firm broke up and its partners agreed to close their firm, discharge its liabilities and settle all accounts. In their settlement of their dissolution, the partners agreed to remain liable for all debts, liabilities and other obligations of the firm; reimburse disbursements and expenses incurred by the firm; and be personally responsible for an obligation of the firm.
Unfortunately, the court reporting agency had not been paid for services rendered in some of the cases previously handled by the law firm. The agency retained Richard A. Klass, Your Court Street Lawyer, to collect on the unpaid invoices.
Attorneys Are Responsible for Stenographic Services:
At one time, there was a difference of opinion as to whether an attorney who orders a court reporter to record testimony at a deposition is liable for the charge. Some court decisions held that the attorney was merely an agent of a disclosed principal (client) and was not responsible and the client was liable to pay the bill. Other court decisions recognized that the attorney was the one ordering the services and the client had little to nothing to do with the decision, and it put a great burden on the court reporting company to pursue its bill against an unknown client. Ultimately, the New York State legislature resolved the matter by enacting a special law to cover payment of these charges.
According to General Business Law Section 399-cc, an attorney who orders or requests stenographic services is responsible to pay for such services:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, when an attorney of record orders or requests either orally or in writing that a stenographic record be made of any judicial proceeding, deposition, statement or interview of a party in a proceeding or of a witness related to such proceeding, it shall be the responsibility of such attorney to pay for the services and the costs of such record except where:
1. payment is otherwise provided by law or where the attorney is providing representation through a not-for-profit provider of criminal or civil legal services; or
2. the attorney expressly disclaims responsibility for payment of the stenographic service or record in writing at the time the attorney orders or requests that the record be made.
Based upon the above statute, the law firm could
be held liable for the bill. However, knowing that the law firm was dissolved,
it was crucial to collection to also sue the individual former partners.
Certification of Expenses in Personal Injury Cases:
By court rule, when a personal injury and medical malpractice action settles, the attorney must file an Office of Court Administration (“OCA”) Closing Statement, wherein he certify the expenses paid on behalf of his client. See, NY R A DIV 2 DEPT Section 691.20 (“13. Itemized statement of the amounts of expenses and disbursements paid or agreed to be paid to others for expert testimony, investigative or other services properly chargeable to the recovery of damages together with the name, address and reason for each payment”).
On a settled case, the court rule further creates a special account in which the moneys are to be held pending payment of the disbursements. See, NY R A DIV 2 DEPT Section 691.20(d) “Deposit of Collections; Notice. (1) Whenever an attorney, who has accepted a retainer or entered into an agreement as above referred to, shall collect any sum of money upon any such action, claim or proceeding, either by way of settlement or after a trial or hearing, he shall forthwith deposit the same in a special account in accordance with the provisions of Rule 1.15 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Within 15 days after the receipt of any such sums he shall cause to be delivered personally to such client or sent by registered or certified mail, addressed to such client at the client’s last known address, a copy of the closing statement required by this section. At the same time the attorney shall pay or remit to the client the amount shown by such statement to be due the client, and he may then withdraw for himself the amount so claimed to be due him for compensation and disbursements.”
Discovery of OCA Closing Statements Sought:
It was alleged that the law firm previously settled some of the cases in which payment for the court reporting services was sought. Therefore, a lien existed upon any settlements to the extent that the bills were unpaid and enforcement could be pursued against the individuals. In responding to the individual attorneys’ motions to dismiss the lawsuit against them, it was urged that discovery be had in the collection case in order to seek the production of the OCA Closing Statements in those settled cases to ascertain whether the attorneys stated in them that all expenses of litigation, including the court reporting company’s bills, were paid. See, Cantor v Levine, 115 AD2d 453, 453 [2d Dept 1985] (“When knowledge of facts is necessary for a party to properly oppose a motion to dismiss, and those facts are within the sole knowledge or possession of the movant, discovery is sanctioned if it has been demonstrated that such facts may exist (CPLR 3211[d]; Cosmos Mason Supplies v. Lido Beach Assoc., 95 A.D.2d 818, 464 N.Y.S.2d 12).”).
Confronted with the opposition to their motions to dismiss, the former law firm and its individual partners agreed to settle the lawsuit and enter into an agreement to pay the court reporting agency for services rendered.
In Knox v Aronson, Mayefsky & Sloan, LLP, 2018 NY Slip Op 09030 [1st Dept Dec. 27, 2018], the court dismissed a legal malpractice case where the client’s allegations were previously addressed in a prior matter. The court held:
Supreme Court properly dismissed plaintiff’s complaint as against FBK, since the only claim asserted, a legal malpractice claim, is barred by the doctrine of res judicata (seeMatter of Hunter, 4 N.Y.3d 260, 269, 794 N.Y.S.2d 286, 827 N.E.2d 269  ). Plaintiff’s legal malpractice claim is based on the same conduct that was the basis of the counterclaim previously dismissed by Supreme Court Westchester County. Res judicata bars all claims “ arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions … even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy ” (Jumax Assoc. v. 350 Cabrini Owners Corp., 110 A.D.3d 622, 623, 973 N.Y.S.2d 631 [1st Dept. 2013] [internal quotation marks omitted], lv denied 23 N.Y.3d 907, 2014 WL 2922240 ). Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the dismissal in the Westchester action was on the merits. The order addressed the merits of the counterclaim, dismissing it on the basis of the settlement and the custody decision in the matrimonial action (seePlaza PH2001 LLC v. Plaza Residential Owner LP, 98 A.D.3d 89, 98, 947 N.Y.S.2d 498 [1st Dept. 2012] ).
The Second Department, in Potenza v Giaimo, 165 AD3d 1186, 1187 [2d Dept 2018], dismissed a client’s legal malpractice action against his attorney based upon the statute of limitations. The court held:
The statute of limitations for causes of action alleging legal malpractice is three years (see CPLR 214; Alizio v. Ruskin Moscou Faltischek, P.C., 126 A.D.3d 733, 735, 5 N.Y.S.3d 252). A cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice accrues when the malpractice is committed (seeShumsky v. Eisenstein, 96 N.Y.2d 164, 166, 726 N.Y.S.2d 365, 750 N.E.2d 67). However, pursuant to the doctrine of continuous representation, the limitations period is tolled until the attorney’s continuing representation of the client with regard to the particular matter terminates (seeShumsky v. Eisenstein, 96 N.Y.2d at 167–168, 726 N.Y.S.2d 365, 750 N.E.2d 67; Aqua–Trol Corp. v. Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, P.A., 144 A.D.3d 956, 957, 42 N.Y.S.3d 56). For the continuous representation doctrine to apply, “ there must be clear indicia of an ongoing, continuous, developing, and dependent relationship between the client and the attorney which often includes an attempt by the attorney to rectify an alleged act of malpractice ” (Luk Lamellen U. Kupplungbau GmbH v. Lerner, 166 A.D.2d 505, 506–507, 560 N.Y.S.2d 787).
The court dismissed the claims against the attorney relating to intent to deceive, holding:
Under Judiciary Law Section 487, an attorney who “[i]s guilty of any deceit or collusion, or consents to any deceit or collusion, with intent to deceive the court or any party” is liable to the injured party for treble damages. “ [V]iolation of Judiciary Law Section 487 requires an intent to deceive, whereas a legal malpractice claim is based on negligent conduct ” (Moormann v. Perini & Hoerger, 65 A.D.3d 1106, 1108, 886 N.Y.S.2d 49 [citation omitted]; seeGorbatov v. Tsirelman, 155 A.D.3d 836, 838, 65 N.Y.S.3d 71).
A Man’s Home Is (Not Always) His Castle: RPAPL 881 License to Enter Neighbor’s Property by Richard A. Klass, Esq.
Download the free E-Book version in PDF format. Or click here for the free on-line web-book. 12 pages/830 KB
A Man’s Home Is (Not Always) His Castle
In the current economic and political climate in New York City, which encourages building more and more housing units for the multitudes, it is not surprising that property owners are experiencing “growing pains.” Among those “growing pains” are the inconvenience and annoyance to neighboring property owners when a developer buys land next door, then seeks to build on that land, and must gain access through the adjacent owners’ property in order to do the work. Access may be needed to move equipment, build up to the property line, or deliver material to the building site.
The New York State Bar Association’s General Practice Section Award is given annually, or at the discretion of the General Practice Section, to honor an individual who is outstanding, innovative, and has made significant contributions to improve the daily practice of law for general practitioners in New York State.
We are pleased to announce that Richard A. Klass, Your Court Street Lawyer, is the recipient of the 2018 General Practice Section Award. It will be presented at the General Practice Section’s Annual Meeting, on January 15, 2019.
This award recognizes a person who has contributed their time and expertise to improve the daily practice of law for general practitioners in New York State, and who has demonstrated a strong dedication to the profession. Consideration is also given for involvement in NYSBA and/or General Practice Section activities.
Past Recipients of the General Practice Section Award:
2017 – Martin Minkowitz 2016 – Robert L. Ostertag 2015 – Willard H. DaSilva 2014 – Leonard E. Sienko, Jr.
The First Department kept a legal malpractice case alive and partially denied the attorney’s motion to dismiss action, where the client alleged that the attorney failed to provide legal advice. In Sehgal v DiRaimondo, 165 AD3d 435, 436-37 [1st Dept 2018], the court held:
We affirm dismissal of part of the malpractice claim on alternative grounds. Plaintiff’s claim that he pleaded guilty to criminal charges in reliance on defendants’ negligent legal advice concerning the immigration consequences of the plea is barred by his guilty plea and lack of any claim of innocence (Carmel v. Lunney, 70 N.Y.2d 169, 173, 518 N.Y.S.2d 605, 511 N.E.2d 1126 ; Yong Wong Park v. Wolff & Samson, P.C., 56 A.D.3d 351, 867 N.Y.S.2d 424 [1st Dept. 2008], lv denied 12 N.Y.3d 704, 876 N.Y.S.2d 705, 904 N.E.2d 842  ). However, the policy underlying the rule established in Carmel v. Lunney, supra, does not require dismissal of the entirety of plaintiff’s legal malpractice claim, because the remainder of his claim that defendants failed to advise him of the potential immigration consequences of traveling outside the United States as a result of entering a guilty plea does not dispute the validity of his conviction (see generally Carmel v. Lunney, supra; see alsoBass & Ullman v. Chanes, 185 A.D.2d 750, 586 N.Y.S.2d 610 [1st Dept. 1992] ). Further, plaintiff’s allegations that he relied on defendants’ faulty legal advice concerning the immigration consequences of his guilty plea in deciding to travel abroad after he pled guilty, resulting in his being detained and subjected to removal proceedings, state a valid cause of action for legal malpractice. Defendants’ other arguments present disputed factual issues concerning the standard of care and proximate cause that are not properly resolved on a motion to dismiss the complaint (seeUrias v. Daniel P. Buttafuoco & Assoc., PLLC, 120 A.D.3d 1339, 1343, 992 N.Y.S.2d 552 [2d Dept. 2014] ).
The Second Department reiterated the general rule on a pre-answer motion to dismiss that letters and emails are generally not considered documentary evidence within the meaning of CPLR 3211(a)(1). In First Choice Plumbing Corp. v Miller Law Offices, PLLC, 164 AD3d 756 [2d Dept 2018], the court held:
The plaintiffs First Choice Plumbing Corp. (hereinafter First Choice) and Malacy Plumbing Supply, Inc. (hereinafter Malacy), commenced this action to recover damages for legal malpractice against the defendant Miller Law Offices, PLLC, for its alleged negligence concerning two mechanic’s liens. The complaint alleges that the plaintiffs failed to receive full payment for plumbing services and supplies they provided on a construction project, and that the plaintiffs each filed a mechanic’s lien to recover the monies owed. The complaint further alleges that the liens were extended once, but subsequently lapsed and were extinguished by operation of law, due to the defendant’s negligence.
The defendant made a pre-answer motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1), (5), and (7). The defendant argued, among other things, that no attorney-client relationship existed with respect to the mechanic’s liens. In support of that contention, the defendant submitted copies of the lien extensions, which were filed by nonparty Speedy Lien; a copy of a contract between First Choice and nonparty Construction Lien Consultants, LLC, to investigate, recover, and/or settle the debts owed to First Choice, as reflected in one of the mechanic’s liens; and emails and a letter. In the order appealed from, the Supreme Court found *173 that the defendant submitted documentary evidence which utterly refuted the plaintiffs’ allegation that there was an attorney-client relationship between them and the defendant with respect to the liens and their extensions. Accordingly, the court granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) to dismiss the complaint on the ground that no attorney-client relationship existed, and denied, in effect, as academic, the remaining branches of the defendant’s motion. The plaintiffs appeal.
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 appropriately granted only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes plaintiff’s factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law” (Goshen v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 98 N.Y.2d 314, 326, 746 N.Y.S.2d 858, 774 N.E.2d 1190; seeLeon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83, 88, 614 N.Y.S.2d 972, 638 N.E.2d 511). “In order for evidence to qualify as ‘documentary,’ it must be unambiguous, authentic, and undeniable” (Granada Condominium III Assn. v. Palomino, 78 A.D.3d 996, 996–997, 913 N.Y.S.2d 668; seeFontanetta v. John Doe 1, 73 A.D.3d 78, 86, 898 N.Y.S.2d 569). “[J]udicial records, as well as documents reflecting out-of-court transactions such as mortgages, deeds, contracts, and any other papers, the contents of which are essentially undeniable, would qualify as documentary evidence in the proper case” (Fontanetta v. John Doe 1, 73 A.D.3d at 84–85, 898 N.Y.S.2d 569 [internal quotation marks omitted] ). “Conversely, letters, emails, and affidavits fail to meet the requirements for documentary evidence” (25–01 Newkirk Ave., LLC v. Everest Natl. Ins. Co., 127 A.D.3d 850, 851, 7 N.Y.S.3d 325; seePhillips v. Taco Bell Corp., 152 A.D.3d 806, 807, 60 N.Y.S.3d 67; Prott v. Lewin & Baglio, LLP, 150 A.D.3d 908, 909, 55 N.Y.S.3d 98; Gawrych v. Astoria Fed. Sav. & Loan, 148 A.D.3d 681, 682, 48 N.Y.S.3d 450).
Here, the emails and letters submitted in support of the defendant’s motion were not documentary evidence within the meaning of CPLR 3211(a)(1). To the extent that the other evidence submitted was documentary, that evidence did not conclusively establish the absence of an attorney-client relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendant with respect to the liens and their extensions. Thus, the Supreme Court should not have granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to dismiss the complaint on this ground.