THIS WEEK’S CASES IN LEGAL MALPRACTICE

1. Gerald Goldman, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP, et al., Defendants-Respondents.

SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION,
FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2007 NY Slip Op 10492

Statute of limitations question in a transactional and litigation case in which defendant attorneys were determined to have worked in the litigation end of the case only, and not in the transactional part..  Dismissal was granted on the basis of prior affidavits.

2.  The Barbara King Family Trust, etc., et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents-Appellants, v Voluto Ventures LLC, et al., Defendants, Kurzman Eisenberg Corbin Lever & Goodman LLP, et al., Defendants-Appellants
 
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION,
FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2007 NY Slip Op 10072

This is a convoluted real-estate purchase, mortgage foreclosure, improvident securities purchase and investment case.  The defendant attorneys represented both King and Voluto, but their representation of  King  was limited to advising her, correctly, in a real estate purchase bid.  She profited from their advice, and then invested the profit unsuccessfully in Voluto.  Case dismissed against the attorneys.

3. Frances Northrop, respondent, v Eric Ole Thorsen, appellant.
2007-00973

SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION,
SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2007 NY Slip Op 10124

Here is a prime example of when to quit.  Defendant attorney moves for summary judgment and loses the motion.  Not satisfied, he appeals, and the Second Department searches the record, entering summary judgment for Plaintiff-Respondent instead.

Attorney represented Plaintiff in a personal injury third party action in which she had obtained Workers Compensation awards.  He entered binding arbitration without obtaining the WC carrier’s consent, and thus doomed her future WC benefits, forever.  When given a chance to fix the problem, he failed to do so. 

4. Richard Gladstone, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v Scott Ziegler, Defendant, Steven Altman, et al., Defendants-Respondents.

SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION,
FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2007 NY Slip Op 9938;

Plaintiff proved that defendant attorney made mistakes in filing a UCC1 but did not demonstrate that its damages could be collected; it also waited too long to move to amend the complaint to add a former version of the law firm.

5. Voluto Ventures, LLC, derivatively on behalf of Harbour Entertainment, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v Jenkens & Gilchrist Parker Chapin LLP, Defendant-Respondent, Harbour Entertainment, Inc., Defendant.

SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION,
FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2007 NY Slip Op 9920

What are the chances of a corporation being on both ends of unrelated legal malpractice cases in the same week?  Here, Voluto wins a motion to dismiss in which it tried to enter into a long term lease for a movie studio on Staten Island.  The law firm is alleged to have botched the transaction.  The case continues.

For more on legal malpractice check out the New York Attorney Malpractice Blog.