Legal Malpractice

Vexatious Litigant Precluded in both State and Federal Court Legal Malpractice Case

By (Andrew Lavoott Bluestone)

It takes a lot of vexing conduct to be foreclosed from bringing an action in state court.  One has to be very, very obstinate and really tick the judge off.  To do so in a legal malpractice setting is even harder, because the general feeling is that plaintiff must have been hurt by a lawyer before bringing the suit, and perhaps a little slack permitted.

To accomplish foreclosure in both State and Federal courts is a difficult daily double.  This litigant has been foreclosed all around, and will not likely be plaintiff in the near future.  2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41440, RAFFAELE M. PANDOZY, Plaintiff, - against - ROBERT J. GUMENICK, P.C., Defendant. 07 Civ. 1242 (NRB) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41440 May 23, 2008, Decided

"Before this Court is defendant Robert Gumenick's motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint brought against him by Raffaele Pandozy. It alleges that defendant committed legal malpractice during his representation of plaintiff in connection with the sale of plaintiff's cooperative apartment. Among other reasons, defendant moves to dismiss this action as untimely under the applicable statute of limitations. For the reasons set forth below, we grant defendant's motion on this ground."

"The basic narrative for our purposes is that after an unsuccessful attempt to extricate himself from the contract to sell his apartment and to avoid the specific performance order that the purchaser obtained against him, plaintiff has spent [*2] the better part of the last four years suing everyone involved with the sale. After being barred by the New York state courts from bringing further actions arising out of the apartment sale, he filed three actions in federal court. The two other cases have been dismissed with both decisions finding plaintiff to be a vexatious litigant and enjoining him from filing further suits arising out of the apartment sale and the ensuing litigation. See Segan, 518 F. Supp. at 559; Tobey, 2007 WL 2815627, at *1. "
 

Full post as published by New York Attorney Malpractice Blog on June 04, 2008 (boomark / email).