Abramovich v. Harris

• Decision Date: 31 May 1996
• Citation: Abramovich v. Harris, 643 N.Y.S.2d 811, 227 A.D.2d 1000 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
• Parties: Mariana ABRAMOVICH and Steve Abramovich, Appellants, v. Stephen HARRIS, Stephen R. Mahler and Mahler & Harris, P.C., Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 811

643 N.Y.S.2d 811

227 A.D.2d 1000

Mariana ABRAMOVICH and Steve Abramovich, Appellants, v.Stephen HARRIS, Stephen R. Mahler and Mahler & Harris, P.C.Respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Fourth Department.

May 31, 1996.

Martin Rubenstein, New York City, for appellants.

Fiedelman & Hoefling by Susan Lysaght, Jericho, for respondents.

Before PINE, J.P., and FALLON, CALLAHAN, BALIO and DAVIS, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in denying plaintiffs' motion for a default judgment in this legal malpractice action.Defendants promptly delivered the summons and complaint to their insurer and, when served with the motion papers seeking a default judgment, also promptly delivered those papers to their insurer.There is no proof that defendants deliberately defaulted, and the court did not abuse its discretion in accepting the negligence or inadvertence of the insurer as a reasonable excuse for the default (see, Damselle, Ltd. v. 500-512 Seventh Ave. Assocs., 184 A.D.2d 367, 584 N.Y.S.2d 846;Price v. Polisner, 172 A.D.2d 422, 568 N.Y.S.2d 796;Pickney v. Wood, 165 A.D.2d 949, 561 N.Y.S.2d 320).

To establish a prima facie case of legal malpractice, plaintiffs must establish that they would have been successful in the underlying action (see, Albach v. Manning & Mule, 201 A.D.2d 601, 609 N.Y.S.2d 835, lv. denied84 N.Y.2d 803, 617 N.Y.S.2d 136, 641 N.E.2d 157;Gonzales v. O'Hagen & Reilly, 189 A.D.2d 801, 592 N.Y.S.2d 431, lv. denied84 N.Y.2d 810, 621 N.Y.S.2d 519, 645 N.E.2d 1219).Defendants submitted facts demonstrating lack of merit to the underlying action, and hence, the existence of a meritorious defense to the legal malpractice action.

We reject plaintiffs' contention that the doctrine of judicial estoppel bars defendants from challenging the merits of the underlying action.That doctrine "precludes a party who assumed a...