180 E. 88th St. Apartment Corp.. v. Law Office of Robert Jay Gumenick

• Decision Date: 17 May 2011
• Citation: 923 N.Y.S.2d 474,2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 04096,84 A.D.3d 582
• Parties: 180 E. 88TH ST. APARTMENT CORP., et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants,v.LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT JAY GUMENICK, P.C., et al., Defendants–Respondents.Law Office of Robert Jay Gumenick, P.C., et al., Counterclaim Plaintiffs–Appellants,v.180 E. 88th St. Apartment Corp., et al., Counterclaim Defendants–Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

84 A.D.3d 582
923 N.Y.S.2d 474
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 04096

180 E. 88TH ST. APARTMENT CORP., et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants,
v.
LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT JAY GUMENICK, P.C., et al., Defendants–Respondents.Law Office of Robert Jay Gumenick, P.C., et al., Counterclaim Plaintiffs–Appellants,
v.
180 E. 88th St. Apartment Corp., et al., Counterclaim Defendants–Respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

May 17, 2011.

[923 N.Y.S.2d 475]

Lane Sash & Larrabee LLP, White Plains (Mitchell Berns of counsel), for 180 E. 88th St. Apartment Corp., Michael Brod, Undine Brod, Joseph T. Cunnane, Paula Ebbins, Brian Estrada, Mitchell Fagin, Sumera Patel and Steven Schwartz, appellants.Kaufman Borgeest & Ryan LLP, New York (Jonathan Bruno of counsel), for Law Office of Robert Jay Gumenick, P.C. and Robert J. Gumenick, respondents/appellants.Miranda Sambursky Slone Sklarin Verveniotis LLP, Mineola (Steven Verveniotis of counsel), for 180 E. 88th St. Apartment Corp., Michael Brod, Paula Ebbins and Brian Estrada, respondents.MAZZARELLI, J.P., SWEENY, ACOSTA, RENWICK, DeGRASSE, JJ.

[84 A.D.3d 582] Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.H.O.), entered December 22, 2010, which granted defendants Law Office of Robert Jay Gumenick, P.C. and Robert J. Gumenick's (collectively, the Law Firm) motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and granted plaintiffs/counterclaim-defendants' (collectively, A–Corp) motion for summary judgment dismissing the Law Firm's counterclaims, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Initially, the claims of plaintiff cooperative shareholders were properly dismissed, as the Law Firm, which was retained solely by the corporate plaintiff, owed a duty only to the corporate [84 A.D.3d 583] plaintiff to draft the contract of sale for A–Corp's ten-unit residential building, and not to the shareholders ( see Eurycleia Partners, LP v. Seward & Kissel, LLP, 12 N.Y.3d 553, 561–562, 883 N.Y.S.2d 147, 910 N.E.2d 976 [2009] ). We find no evidentiary support for the shareholders' argument that special circumstances existed (i.e., alleged “unity-of interest”) to allow the shareholders to assert a claim for legal malpractice against the Law Firm ( see generally AG Capital Funding Partners, L.P. v. State St. Bank & Trust Co., 5 N.Y.3d 582, 595, 808 N.Y.S.2d 573, 842 N.E.2d 471 [2005] ).

The motion court correctly found that the clear language of the parties' retainer agreement undermined A–Corp's legal malpractice claim...