Legal Malpractice

NJ Legal Malpractice Case Dismissed after Losing an Auto Case

By (Andrew Lavoott Bluestone)

Plaintiff suffered an auto accident, and went to trial.  Although the jury determined that the other driver was 100% at fault, it granted no damages to plaintiff.  She sued her attorney , alleging that settlement offers were not comunicated to her.JUANITA GALATE, v.  LOUIS A. CHIAROLANZA, ESQ.,  and CHIAROLANZA & DeANGELIS, ESQS

Her legal malpractice case is now dismissed, after several mistaken turns, and lots of  time passing with no one looking at the calendar.

"After the parties engaged in discovery, the attorneys exchanged correspondence regarding a trial date. In a letter to defendant's attorney dated October 8, 2001, plaintiff's attorney asked for "some potential dates in November 2001 which are in accord with your calendar," and defense counsel advised he was available for trial on November 29 and 30, 2001.

On January 25, 2002, the Essex County, Civil Division, scheduled the case for trial on March 18, 2002. The trial notice stated that any applications for adjournments "must include: consent of parties, [and an] agreed upon date." The trial notice was received by defendant's attorney, but it was not received by plaintiff's attorney. Thus, on February 11, 2002, plaintiff's attorney was unaware that the case was already scheduled for trial, when he sent the following letter to the court, with copies to plaintiff and defendant's attorney:

It appears plaintiff's attorney never responded to the letter sent by defendant's attorney requesting confirmation the trial date was adjourned to May 6, 2002, and the court never responded to the letter from plaintiff's attorney requesting a trial date. Nevertheless, no further action was taken to obtain a trial date until July 30, 2004, when plaintiff's attorney wrote the following letter to the court.

On March 23, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion to reinstate her complaint and to schedule her case for trial. In a certification submitted in support of plaintiff's motion, plaintiff's attorney explained that he was never notified the case was scheduled for trial on March 18, 2002, and he did not learn of the dismissal order until his "office contacted the Essex County Civil Assignment Clerk to ascertain when this matter would be scheduled for trial." However, plaintiff's attorney did not explain why no action was taken to reinstate plaintiff's complaint between July 30, 2004, and March 23, 2007.

On March 23, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion to reinstate her complaint and to schedule her case for trial. In a certification submitted in support of plaintiff's motion, plaintiff's attorney explained that he was never notified the case was scheduled for trial on March 18, 2002, and he did not learn of the dismissal order until his "office contacted the Essex County Civil Assignment Clerk to ascertain when this matter would be scheduled for trial." However, plaintiff's attorney did not explain why no action was taken to reinstate plaintiff's complaint between July 30, 2004, and March 23, 2007.

Following oral argument on April 27, 2007, the trial court denied plaintiff's motion to reinstate her complaint. The court found that the five-year delay after the dismissal of plaintiff's complaint on March 18, 2002, prejudiced defendant's ability to respond to plaintiff's claims, and it also found that plaintiff failed to articulate any explanation for the "lack of activity on this file" since July 2004.

Based on our review of the record and the applicable law, we reject these arguments and affirm"

Full post as published by New York Attorney Malpractice Blog on February 27, 2008 (boomark / email).