Cohen v. Lipsig
| Decision Date | 07 February 1983 |
| Citation | 459 N.Y.S.2d 98,92 A.D.2d 536 |
| Parties | Jack COHEN, Appellant, v. Harry H. LIPSIG, Respondent, et al., Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
DePetris & Stewart, New York City (Carl I. Stewart, New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
D'Amato & Lynch, New York City (Robert E. Meshel, John G. Fellinger and Elliot B. Pasik, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.
Before TITONE, J.P., and BRACKEN, NIEHOFF and RUBIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for legal malpractice, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated June 10, 1981, which granted the motion of defendant Harry H. Lipsig for summary judgment, and thereupon directed a severance and dismissed the complaint against him.
Order reversed, with $50 costs and disbursements, and motion denied. The examination before trial of respondent shall continue at a time and place to be fixed in a written notice of not less than 10 days, to be given by plaintiff, or at such time and place as the parties agree.
A cause of action for legal malpractice is viable despite the plaintiff's settlement of the underlying action where such settlement was compelled because of the mistakes of the defendant, the plaintiff's former counsel (see Kerson Co. v. Shayne, Dachs, Weiss, Kolbrenner, Levy, 45 N.Y.2d 730, 732, 408 N.Y.S.2d 475, 380 N.E.2d 302, affg 59 A.D.2d 551, 397 N.Y.S.2d 142 on concurring opn of SUOZZI, J.; Becker v. Julien, Blitz & Schlesinger, 95 Misc.2d 64, 66-67, 406 N.Y.S.2d 412, mod on other grounds 66 A.D.2d 674, 411 N.Y.S.2d 17).
There are issues of fact, including, inter alia, (1) whether the outside trial counsel retained by respondent was negligent in the preparation and conduct of the trial as to the presentation of proof of special damages and other matters, (2) whether plaintiff gave informed consent to respondent's choice of outside trial counsel, (3) whether respondent used reasonable care in his choice of such trial counsel, (4) whether respondent was negligent in failing to procure records of plaintiff's special damages during the 12 years prior to retainer of trial counsel, and (5) whether respondent should be estopped from denying derivative liability for the alleged negligence of the trial counsel chosen by him (cf. Wilderman v. Wachtell, 149 Misc. 623, 267 N.Y.S. 840, affd 241 App.Div. 812, 271 N.Y.S. 954).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thomas v. Bethea
...and the answer appears to be "no." See, for example, Fishman v. Brooks, 396 Mass. 643, 487 N.E.2d 1377 (1986); Cohen v. Lipsig, 92 A.D.2d 536, 459 N.Y.S.2d 98 (1983); Schaefer v. Manfredi, 156 A.D.2d 552, 549 N.Y.S.2d 59 (1989); Lowman v. Karp, 190 Mich.App. 448, 476 N.W.2d 428 (1991); Broo......
-
Grayson v. Wofsey, Rosen, Kweskin and Kuriansky
...Lowman v. Karp, 190 Mich.App. 448, 476 N.W.2d 428 (1991); Ziegelheim v. Apollo, supra, 128 N.J. 250, 607 A.2d 1298; Cohen v. Lipsig, 92 A.D.2d 536, 459 N.Y.S.2d 98 (1983); but see Muhammad v. Strassburger, McKenna, Messer, Shilobod & Gutnick, supra, 526 Pa. 541, 587 A.2d Furthermore, we do ......
-
Prande v. Bell
...with respect to an underlying action when the client settled the underlying action with the original defendant. In Cohen v. Lipsig, 92 A.D.2d 536, 459 N.Y.S.2d 98 (1983), a New York intermediate appellate court held that a cause of action for legal malpractice was viable despite the plainti......
-
Parker v. Glasgow
...of the defendant attorney, although it may be relevant evidence on whether the standard of conduct was met"); Cohen v. Lipsig, 459 N.Y.S.2d 98, 99 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983) ("A cause of action for legal malpractice is viable despite the plaintiff's settlement of the underlying action where such......
-
The Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act,
...190 Mich App. 448 476 N.W. 2d 428 (1991); Ziegelheim v. Apollo, 128 N.J., 250, 607 A.2d 1298(1992); Chen v. Lipsig, 92 App. Div. 2d 516, 459 N.Y.S.2d 98 (1983). 40. Muhammad v. Stassburger, McKenna, Messer, Shilobod & Gutnick, 526 Pa. 541, 587 A.2d 1346 (1991). 41. Grayson, supra, 231 Conn.......
-
Legal Malpractice in Kansas: Principles and Examples
...Legal Malpractice § 5.9 (5th ed. 2000). 69. 98 F. Supp. 1159 (D.N.J. 1975). 70. Tormo, 398 F. Supp. at 1171. 71. See Cohen v. Lipsig, 459 N.Y.S.2d 98 (1983). 72. K.R.P.C. Rule 1.5 (g). 73. Kansas Sup. Ct. Rule 226. 74. Canaan v. Bartee, Kan. , 72 P.3d 911 (2003). 75. These examples are clai......
-
Legal Malpractice in Kansas: Principles and Examples
...Legal Malpractice § 5.9 (5th ed. 2000). 69. 98 F. Supp. 1159 (D.N.J. 1975). 70. Tormo, 398 F. Supp. at 1171. 71. See Cohen v. Lipsig, 459 N.Y.S.2d 98 (1983). 72. K.R.P.C. Rule 1.5 (g). 73. Kansas Sup. Ct. Rule 226. 74. Canaan v. Bartee, Kan. , 72 P.3d 911 (2003). 75. These examples are clai......
-
Contract Lawyering: Benefits and Obstacles - January 2008 - Whoops: Legal Malpractice Prevention
...§ 5.8, Liability of Principals. 31. Foster v. McLain, 198 So.2d 463 (La. 1967). 32. See id. at 463. 33. Id. 34. Cohen v. Lipsig, 459 N.Y.S.2d 98 (N.Y.App.Div. 1983). 35. Scott v. Francis, 838 P.2d 596 (Or. 1992). 36. See, e.g., id. at 596. 37. Kiser, supra note 28. 38. Lenches-Marrow v. The......