Raghavendra v. Brill, Index No. 600002/2011
| Decision Date | 31 January 2014 |
| Docket Number | Index No. 600002/2011 |
| Citation | 2014 NY Slip Op 33961 (U) |
| Parties | RAJAGOPALA S. RAGHAVENDRA a/k/a RANDY S. RAGHAVENDRA, Plaintiff v. EDWARD A. BRILL, individually and as attorney/partner at Proskauer Rose, LLP, PROSKAUER ROSE, LLP, LEE C. BOLLINGER, individually and as president of Columbia University, TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, LOUIS D. STOBER, JR., individually and as attorney at law offices of Louis D. Stober, Jr., LLC, LAW OFFICE OF LOUIS D. STOBER, JR., LLC, JOHN DOE 1-10, and JANE DOE 1-10, Defendants |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
DECISION AND ORDER
Three federal actions by plaintiff and a charge of discrimination before the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by plaintiff against defendant Trustees of Columbia University, claiming retaliatory and wrongful termination of his employment and violation of his civil rights, underlie this action. On July 30, 2009, plaintiff, his attorney Louis D. Stober, Jr., Columbia University, and its attorneys engaged in a full day of mediation, where plaintiff signed the "Terms of Settlement between Rajagopala S. Raghavendra and the Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York." Aff. of Robert Modica (Oct. 2, 2012) Ex. H. The settlement provides plaintiff a substantial payment in exchange for discontinuance of all his claims in the four actions, provides for how his employment references will be addressed in the future, and provides that the terms are final and binding on all parties.
Plaintiff subsequently sought to disavow his settlement agreement based on fraud, duress, and illegality, primarily objecting to the release of all his claims against Columbia University and payment of any attorneys' fees to Stober and his law office. In a decision dated February 19, 2010, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York rejected plaintiff's contention that he was coerced into the mediation; determined that the settlement agreement, as a product of negotiation at arm's length, was valid, enforceable, and binding on plaintiff; and denied the relief he sought. Raghavendra v. Trustees of Columbia Univ., 686 F. Supp. 2d 332, 336 (S.D.N.Y. 2010), aff'd in part and vacated in part, 434 F. App'x 31 (2d Cir. 2011). Exercising supplemental jurisdiction, the federal district court ordered plaintiff to pay his attorney according to their retainer agreement. Id., 686 F. Supp. 2d at 337-38. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the enforceability of the settlement agreement and remanded the action to the district court to determine the amount of the fee plaintiff owes Stober or his law office. Id., 434 F. App'x at 32. The district court in turn ruled that Stober was entitled to one third of the total payment due plaintiff under the settlement agreement, reduced by the $10,000 retainer fee plaintiff had paid. Raghavendra v. Trustees of Columbia Univ., 2012 WL3778823, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2012).
Plaintiff commenced this action in 2011, alleging claims against defendant Stober and the Law Office of Louis D. Stober, Jr., LLC, against defendants Columbia University and its president Bollinger, and against the Columbia defendants' attorneys, defendants Brill and his law firm Proskauer Rose LLP. The Stober, Columbia University, and Proskauer Rose defendants each move to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint against them pursuant to C.P.L.R. § 3211(a)(1), (5), and (7). Plaintiff separately moves for declaratory and preliminary injunctive relief. C.P.L.R. §§ 3001, 6301, 6312(a).
Against the Stober defendants, plaintiff claims: (1) intentional and negligent misrepresentation in inducing him to sign the 2009 settlement agreement; (2) fraudulent inducement into their retainer agreement; (3) breach of the 2007 contract for attorneys' services; (4) violation of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct; (5) breach of a fiduciary duty; (6) legal malpractice and gross negligence; (7) conflict of interest; (8) breach of the settlement agreement; (9) tortious interference with the settlement agreement; (10) deliberate delay and late payment entitling him to interest at 9% per year; (11) conversion; (12) unjust enrichment; (13) violation of New York Judiciary Law § 90(2) and perjury; (14) abuse of process; (15) violation of New York General Business Law § 349; (16) additional fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment; (17) conspiracy;(18) breach of implied and express warranties; (19) intentional wrongdoing; (20) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (21) violation of Judiciary Law § 487.
Against defendants Columbia University and its president Bollinger, plaintiff claims collusion with the Stober defendants and: (1) gross negligence; (2) intentional and negligent misrepresentation; (3) breach of the settlement agreement; (4) tortious interference with a contract; (5) abuse of process; (6) additional fraud and concealment; (7) aiding and abetting breach of a fiduciary duty; (8) aiding and abetting legal malpractice; (9) aiding and abetting abuse of process; (10) aiding and abetting fraud and concealment; (11) conspiracy and collusion in abuse of process, legal malpractice, breach of a fiduciary duty, and fraud; (12) intentional wrongdoing; and (13) intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Against the Columbia defendants' attorneys, defendants Brill and Proskauer Rose, plaintiff Claims: (1) legal malpractice and gross negligence; (2) intentional and negligent misrepresentation; (3) aiding and abetting violation of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct; (4) breach of the settlement agreement; (5) tortious interference with a contract; (6) abuse of process; (7) additional fraud and concealment; (8) aiding and abetting breach of a fiduciary duty; (9) aiding and abetting legal malpractice; (10) aiding and abetting abuse of process; (11) aiding and abetting fraud and concealment; (12) conspiracy and collusion in aiding and abetting; (13) intentionalwrongdoing; (14) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (15) violation of Judiciary. Law § 487.
Upon defendants' motions to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to C.P.L.R. § 3211(a)(7), the court must accept plaintiff's allegations as true, liberally construe them, and draw all reasonable inferences in his favor. Walton v. New York State Dept. of Correctional Services, 13 N.Y.3d 475, 484 (2009); Nonnon v. City of New York, 9 N.Y.3d 825, 827 (2007); IDT Corp. v. Tyco Group, S.A.R.L., 104 A.D.3d 170, 176 (1st Dep't 2012); Wadiak v. Pond Management, LLC, 101 A.D.3d 474, 475 (1st Dep't 2012). No such consideration may be 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 on C.P.L.R. § 3211(a)(7) only if the allegations completely fail to state a claim. Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83, 88 (1994); Harris v. IG Greenpoint Corp., 72 A.D.3d 608, 609 (1st Dep't 2010); Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP v. Fashion Boutique of Short Hills, Inc., 10 A.D.3d 267, 270-71 (1st Dep't 2004); Frank v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 292 A.D.2d 118, 121 (1st Dep't 2002).
When a defense is based on documentary evidence, the court may dismiss claims only if that evidence conclusively establishes a defense as a matter of law. C.P.L.R. § 3211(a)(1); Lawrence v.Graubard Miller, 11 N.Y.3d 588, 595 (2008); Goshen v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 98 N.Y.2d 314, 326 (2002); Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d at 87-88; Greenapple v. Capital One, N.A., 92 A.D.3d 548, 550 (1st Dep't 2012). Dismissal of a claim is warranted under C.P.L.R. § 3211(a)(5) when defendants establish that the claim is barred by the statute of limitations, collateral estoppel, or res judicata. E.g., Chelsea 18 Partners, LP v. Sheck Yee Mak, 90 A.D.3d 38, 43 (1st Dep't 2011); Constructamax, Inc. v. Weber, 109 A.D.3d 574, 576 (2d Dep't 2013).
Plaintiff's claim for intentional and negligent misrepresentation alleges misrepresentations by the Stober defendants (1) to plaintiff regarding attorneys' fees and the scope of the settlement covering all his claims against "Columbia University and (2) to the federal district court and the mediator regarding the Strober defendants' limited representation. As the Stober defendants' breach of the retainer agreement, plaintiff alleges the Stober defendants neglected their obligations to conduct discovery and to obtain injunctive relief. For the breach of a fiduciary duty and the negligence claims, plaintiff alleges the Stober defendants failed to follow his instructions, misled him and failed to advise him adequately regarding the mediation leading to a potential universal settlement, and failed to recuse themselves. For the conflict of interest claim, plaintiff alleges the Stober defendants tricked him intoaccepting the lowest possible settlement amount. As the violation of General Business Law § 349, plaintiff alleges the Stober defendants failed to render legal services, misled him, and concealed information from him. As the violation of Judiciary Law § 90(2) and perjury, plaintiff alleges the Stober defendants falsely represented their entitlement to attorneys' fees, the scope of their representation, and the assessed value of and their credit for settling plaintiff's various actions. For the legal malpractice and additional fraud and concealment claims, plaintiff alleges the Stober defendants' overall failure to represent him adequately in the federal litigation, their fraudulent inducement to attend the mediation July 30, 2009, and to sign the settlement agreement, and their attempt to...
To continue reading
Request your trial