David v. Hack
Decision Date | 10 July 2012 |
Citation | 948 N.Y.S.2d 583,97 A.D.3d 437,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 05479 |
Parties | Dany DAVID, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Michail Z. HACK, et al., Defendants–Appellants. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP, Hawthorne (Lisa L. Shrewsberry of counsel), for appellants.
Savitt Law Firm PLLC, New York (Richard P. Savitt of counsel), for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Donna M. Mills, J.), entered September 19, 2011, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants' pre-answer motion to dismiss, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1), (5) and (7), the cause of action for legal malpractice, unanimously reversed, and the motion granted, without costs.
By written agreement dated April 28, 2009, plaintiff, a commodities trader with MBF Clearing Corporation, retained defendant Quadrino & Schwartz, P.C., on an hourly fee basis, “to represent him in connection with the filing of long term disability claims under two Guardian group policies.” At that time, the “look back period” for determining an employee's “Insured Earnings,” used to calculate the amount of benefits to which the employee was entitled, was one year from the date of disability. As of May 1, 2009, the look back period was increased to three years.
In support of his malpractice claim, plaintiff alleges that defendants, without his knowledge, submitted a claim form that incorrectly stated that the date of his disability was “4/9/09,” which was the day he stopped trading, not the day he was determined to be disabled; the latter he alleges was May 13, 2009. Plaintiff contends that as a result of this error, Guardian applied the one-year look back period, which led to the denial of his claim on April 14, 2010, because his 2008 income tax return showed a loss. Although plaintiff, on a contingency fee basis, retained new counsel who successfully appealed the denial, he seeks to recover from defendants the additional costs, expenses and attorneys' fees he incurred in prosecuting that appeal.
Supreme Court correctly determined that issues of fact exist as to whether the release signed by plaintiff on March 31, 2010, in connection with the settlement of his fee dispute with defendants, was obtained in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR § 1200.0), rule 1.8(h)(2)( see Swift v. Ki Young Choe, 242 A.D.2d 188, 192, 674 N.Y.S.2d 17 [1998];see also Newin Corp. v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 37 N.Y.2d 211, 217, 371 N.Y.S.2d 884, 333 N.E.2d 163 [1975] ). However, the malpractice claim must nevertheless be dismissed because the evidentiary materials submitted by the parties conclusively establish that defendants breached no duty to plaintiff, and that no alleged damages were caused by any act of defendants ( see O'Callaghan v. Brunelle, 84 A.D.3d 581, 923 N.Y.S.2d 89 [2011],lv. denied18 N.Y.3d 804, 2012 WL 117988 [2012];Between The Bread Realty Corp. v. Salans Hertzfeld Heilbronn Christy & Viener, 290 A.D.2d 380, 381, 736 N.Y.S.2d 666 [2002],lv. denied98 N.Y.2d 603, 745 N.Y.S.2d 502, 772 N.E.2d 605 [2002] ).
To succeed on a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1), the documentary evidence relied on by the defendant must “conclusively establish[ ] a defense to the asserted claims as a matter of law” ( Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83, 88, 614 N.Y.S.2d 972, 638 N.E.2d 511 [1994] ). On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court must “accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord plaintiff[ ] the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory” ( id. at 87–88, 614 N.Y.S.2d 972, 638 N.E.2d 511). However, “allegations consisting of bare legal conclusions as well as factual claims flatly contradicted by documentary evidence are not entitled to any such consideration” ( Maas v. Cornell Univ., 94 N.Y.2d 87, 91, 699 N.Y.S.2d 716, 721 N.E.2d 966 [1999] ).
At the heart of plaintiff's malpractice claim is his assertion that defendants could have obtained the date of his disability from his treating physician, Dr. Schottenstein, at any time after May 13, 2009, but refused or neglected to do so. However, the record demonstrates that when plaintiff's new counsel argued in his June 14, 2010 appeal letter to Guardian that the claim turned on the date it was determined that plaintiff was disabled, not on the date he ceased trading, he relied on the “ June 10, 2010 Medical Record of Dr. Douglas Schottenstein, NYSpinemedicine, which for the first time gives [plaintiff] a date of disability on May 13, 2010” (emphasis added). Defendants ceased acting as plaintiff's attorney on December 23, 2009, well before the June 10, 2010 record was available.
The documentary evidence further demonstrates that defendants' submissions to Guardian were based on the information available to them. Defendants were retained to file a disability claim on April 28, 2009, which predates the date on which plaintiff claims it was determined that he was disabled. Plaintiff's claim form, dated September 2, 2009, states that April 9, 2009 was the date that he became unable to work because of illness or injury. While plaintiff asserts that he signed the claim form in blank, the e-mail he relies on shows that he was provided with a draft claim form, asked to review it and complete the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jarusauskaite v. Almod Diamonds, Ltd.
...however, to allegations that consist of only bare legal conclusions, Simkin v. Blank, 19 N.Y.3d 46, 52 (2012); David v. Hack, 97 A.D.3d 437, 438 (1st Dep't 2012), with which the complaint here is replete, or to its allegations of claims that are not legally cognizable. Instead, the court ac......
-
Raghavendra v. Brill, Index No. 600002/2011
...given, however, to allegations that consist of only bare legal conclusions. Simkin v. Blank, 19 N.Y.3d 46, 52 (2012); David v. Hack, 97 A.D.3d 437, 438 (1st Dep't 2012). The court must determine whether the alleged facts fit within any cognizable legal theory and may dismiss a claim based o......
-
Marc Lester, Marc Lester Antiques & Brocante, LLC v. Michael Capo, Kenneth Rosenblum, Jerome Mazzeo, & Beaux-Arts Auction, LLC
...as well as factual claims flatly contradicted by documentary evidence are not entitled to any such consideration." David v. Hack, 97 A.D.3d 437, 438 (1st Dep't 2012). Whether a plaintiff can ultimately establish its allegations may not be considered when deciding a motion to dismiss. EBC I,......
-
Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman LLP v. Amira Nature Foods, Ltd.
...flatly contradicted by documentary evidence are not" presumed to be true or accorded every favorable inference (David v Hack, 97 A.D.3d 437, 948 N.Y.S.2d 583 [1st Dept 2012]).Breach of Contract Defendant fails to plead facts to establish a claim for breach of contract. Specifically, as to D......
-
Documents
...record concerning how plaintif injured herself was not relevant to diagnosis and treatment and thus not admissible. David v. Hack , 97 A.D.3d 437, 498 N.Y.S.2d 583 (1st Dept. 2012). Documentary evidence conclusively established that defendant lawyer’s submission of a disability claim form t......
-
Documents
...record concerning how plaintif injured herself was not relevant to diagnosis and treatment and thus not admissible. David v. Hack , 97 A.D.3d 437, 498 N.Y.S.2d 583 (1st Dept. 2012). Documentary evidence conclusively established that defendant lawyer’s submission of a disability claim form t......
-
Documents
...and the chemicals used during the test, constituted appropriate evidence. Operator certifications were sufficient. David v. Hack , 97 A.D.3d 437, 498 N.Y.S.2d 583 (1st Dept. 2012). Documentary evidence conclusively established that defendant lawyer’s submission of a disability claim form to......
-
Documents
...record concerning how plaintif injured herself was not relevant to diagnosis and treatment and thus not admissible. David v. Hack , 97 A.D.3d 437, 498 N.Y.S.2d 583 (1st Dept. 2012). Documentary evidence conclusively established that defendant lawyer’s submission of a disability claim form t......