Pillard v. Goodman

• Decision Date: 17 March 2011
• Citation: 82 A.D.3d 541,918 N.Y.S.2d 461
• Parties: Monique PILLARD, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Robert GOODMAN, et al., Defendants-Appellants, Janet Neschis, Defendant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

918 N.Y.S.2d 461 82 A.D.3d 541 Monique PILLARD, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Robert GOODMAN, et al., Defendants-Appellants, Janet Neschis, Defendant. Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York. March 17, 2011.

Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, New York (Joseph L. Francoeur and Thomas W. Hyland of counsel), for appellants.

Kennedy Johnson Gallagher LLC, New York (Peter J. Gallagher of counsel), for respondent.

GONZALEZ, P.J., TOM, ACOSTA, RICHTER, ROMÁN, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered November 16, 2009, to the extent it denied the motion by defendants Goodman and Curtin to dismiss the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

This action alleging legal malpractice arose out of defendants' representation of plaintiff in a lawsuit brought by Victoria Gallegos alleging employment discrimination against nonparty Elite Model Management Corp.; plaintiff, a 10% shareholder; and Elite's majority shareholder, director of finance and co-president. A bifurcated trial resulted in a verdict of liability against the Elite defendants and an award to Gallegos of approximately $2.6 million in compensatory damages and $2.6 million in punitive damages against the corporate defendant. On appeal, this Court affirmed the liability verdict but vacated the damages award and remanded the matter for a new trial on the issue of damages ( see Gallegos v. Elite Model Mgt. Corp., 28 A.D.3d 50, 807 N.Y.S.2d 44 [2005] ).

The instant complaint states a cause of action for legal malpractice by alleging that defendants were negligent in failing to proffer evidence at trial that plaintiff was no longer president of Elite when Gallegos's employment commenced, had limited authority to respond to Gallegos's complaints, and did not approve of or participate in the termination of Gallegos's employment, and that but for this negligence plaintiff would have beenexonerated of liability and would not have incurred damages ( see InKine Pharm. Co. v. Coleman, 305 A.D.2d 151, 759 N.Y.S.2d 62 [2003] ). Plaintiff also alleges sufficiently that Curtin mishandled the Gallegos in-house complaint and failed to apprise her of Gallegos's early settlement demand in the amount of $50,000 ( see Boglia v. Greenberg, 63 A.D.3d 973, 975, 882 N.Y.S.2d 215 [2009] ).

The complaint further alleges that defendants' joint representation of all the Elite defendants in the Gallegos action, in violation of Code of Professional...