Legal Malpractice

Many Allegations all under the Roof of Legal Malpractice

By (Andrew Lavoott Bluestone)

Some time ago, the Court of Appeals decided Santulli v Englert, Reilly & McHugh, P.C., 78 N.Y.2d 700, [1992].  The upshot of that decision was that plaintiff could plead both negligence and breach of contract, and each had different statutes of limitation, 3 and 6 years.  This led to a plethora of claims against attorneys, in fraud, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty.  For the most part, these were inventive ways around a three year statute of limitations.  Then the legislature intervened, and as a result there is a single blanket three year statute of limitations.

Here in this case , Carl v Cohen ,2008 NY Slip Op 08252 ,Decided on October 30, 2008
Appellate Division, First Department  we see that while the legal malpractice claim continues, the balance of the claims have been dismissed. 
 

"The fraud claim was duplicative of the legal malpractice claim since it was "not based on an allegation of independent, intentionally tortious" conduct (Sabo v Alan B. Brill, P.C., 25 AD3d 420, 421 [2006]) and failed to allege "separate and distinct" damages (White of Lake George v Bell, 251 AD2d 777, 778 [1998], lv dismissed 92 NY2d 947 [1998]). The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying leave to replead the fraud claim because the purportedly new evidence was insufficient to allege independent conduct not already included in the legal malpractice claim.

The tortious interference claim was insufficient because it failed to allege that defendant had directed his fraudulent conduct at a specific third party, that said party would have hired plaintiff but for defendant's misconduct, and that defendant's wrongful conduct was motivated solely by an intent to injure plaintiff (see Carvel Corp. v Noonan, 3 NY3d 182 (2004). "

Full post as published by New York Attorney Malpractice Blog on November 06, 2008 (boomark / email).