Claudio v. Heller
| Decision Date | 20 May 1983 |
| Citation | 119 Misc.2d 432,463 N.Y.S.2d 155 |
| Parties | Angel CLAUDIO v. Mark HELLER. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
The defendant has moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. The plaintiff has cross-moved for summary judgment.
On May 15, 1980, Angel Claudio, then 16, murdered Steven Zweikert, who was returning home from his high school prom. Acting on an anonymous tip, the police questioned, but did not arrest, Claudio. After consulting with defendant Heller, who is a lawyer, Claudio confessed to an assistant district attorney that he had robbed and murdered Zweikert. Claudio gave his statement in Heller's presence. The police did not have probable cause to arrest Claudio before his confession. The plaintiff and Randolfo Maldonado were indicted for murder in the second degree. Heller was relieved as Maldonado's attorney on June 3, 1980 because of a conflict of interest in representing both defendants, and he was later discharged as Claudio's lawyer. Claudio subsequently brought a motion to suppress his confession, and Criminal Term held a hearing. Claudio testified that he confessed because Heller advised him to do so. Heller testified that Claudio insisted on surrendering to the authorities and making a statement. Upon finding that Claudio's testimony was more credible than Heller's, Criminal Term suppressed the confession. The court held that the confession was obtained in violation of the defendant's Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights in that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel.
The People appealed from the order of suppression. (People v. Claudio, 85 A.D.2d 245, 447 N.Y.S.2d 972.) The Appellate Division, Second Department, concluded that the findings of Criminal Term on questions of credibility had sufficient support in the record to be left undisturbed. "Given these findings", the Appellate Division wrote, "and the fact that Heller was told that there would be no plea offer, it must be concluded that Heller failed to fulfill his responsibility to protect his client's interest diligently and competently". (People v. Claudio, supra, 251, 447 N.Y.S.2d 972.) Nevertheless, the Appellate Division reversed that part of the order which suppressed Claudio's confession, holding that nothing in the State or Federal Constitution requires a court to review the competency of the advice given to an uncharged suspect by his retained counsel.
By summons and complaint dated May 27, 1982, Claudio brought this $5,000,000 legal malpractice action against Heller on the theory that the latter's incompetence resulted in his arrest and indictment for murder. Claudio has moved for summary judgment on the ground that Criminal Term's findings on Heller's competence, which were not changed by the Appellate Division, collaterally estop Heller on the issue of liability.
The issue to be determined is whether the complaint fails to state a cause of action because the plaintiff does not allege that he is innocent of murdering Zweikert. The court is not aware of any New York cases which have answered this question. In Vavolizza v. Krieger, 33 N.Y.2d 351, 352 N.Y.S.2d 919, 308 N.E.2d 439, a plaintiff sued his former attorney for malpractice because the attorney allegedly coerced him into making a guilty plea. However, the Court of Appeals dismissed the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff was collaterally estopped by the decision of a federal court that denied his motion to vacate the plea from relitigating the issues of coercion and guilt. In Rastelli v. Sutter, Moffatt, Yannelli & Zerin, 87 A.D.2d 865, 449 N.Y.S.2d 305, a former client sued the attorneys who represented him on a criminal case on the theory that their negligent acts caused him to seek substitute counsel to defend him on short notice and preparation, with the result that he was convicted. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed an order which dismissed the complaint pursuant to the doctrine of collateral estoppel. The decision is noteworthy because it expressly recognizes that, in order to succeed on a malpractice claim based on services rendered in a criminal action, the attorney's negligence must be shown to have been the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peeler v. Hughes & Luce
...511 N.E.2d 1126, 1128 (1987); B.K. Indus., Inc. v. Pinks, 143 A.D.2d 963, 533 N.Y.S.2d 595, 596-97 (1988); Claudio v. Heller, 119 Misc.2d 432, 463 N.Y.S.2d 155, 156-57 (1983); Bailey v. Tucker, 533 Pa. 237, 621 A.2d 108, 113 These decisions emphasize that public policy prohibits criminal de......
-
Carmel v. Lunney
...This conclusion may be obtained by following any one of three distinct but related paths of reasoning. As in Claudio v. Heller, 119 Misc.2d 432, 463 N.Y.S.2d 155, the damages sustained by plaintiff flow directly from his guilt of the criminal acts, conclusively established by his plea of gu......
-
Winkler v. Messinger, Alperin & Hufjay
...of the criminal charges lodged against him (see, Carmel v. Lunney, 70 N.Y.2d 169, 518 N.Y.S.2d 605, 511 N.E.2d 1126; Claudio v. Heller, 119 Misc.2d 432, 463 N.Y.S.2d 155). Additionally, the complaint is time-barred as a result of the plaintiff's failure to institute this action within three......
-
Gebhardt v. O'Rourke
...action. This is because dispositive post-conviction relief is relevant to the issue of proximate causation. Claudio v. Heller, 119 Misc2d 432, 463 NYS2d 155 (Sup Ct 1983). As Shaw argues it is also relevant to the issue of damages. See Johnson v. Schmidt, 719 SW2d 825, 826 (Mo App 1986). If......