S & D Petroleum Co., Inc. v. Tamsett
| Decision Date | 17 November 1988 |
| Citation | 534 N.Y.S.2d 800,144 A.D.2d 849 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | S & D PETROLEUM COMPANY, INC., Respondent, v. Clifton M. TAMSETT, Jr., Appellant. |
Roche, Corrigan, McCoy & Bush (Scott W. Bush, of counsel), Albany, for appellant.
Kiley, Feldmann, Whalen, Devine & Patane, P.C. (Robert G. Suttmeier, of counsel), Oneida, for respondent.
Before MAHONEY, P.J., and CASEY, YESAWICH, LEVINE and HARVEY, JJ.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Tait, Jr., J.), entered December 15, 1987 in Madison County, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability.
In 1984 plaintiff engaged defendant, an attorney, to secure a debt of $19,747.56 owed plaintiff by one of its customers, C & H Trucking, Inc. (hereinafter C & H). Defendant prepared a security agreement naming C & H and Charles and Carolyn Waltz, two individuals involved in the trucking concern, as the debtors and giving plaintiff a security interest in a 1984 Mack truck. Typed language, added to the preprinted form, provided that the debt with interest was payable as follows: "Cash on all oil deliveries plus $500.00 payment on account upon delivery of product to the debtor." This was followed by printed language in the form declaring that the collateral also secured "any other indebtedness or liability of the [d]ebtor to the [s]ecured [p]arty direct or indirect, absolute or contingent, due or to become due, now existing or hereafter arising, including all future advances or loans which may be made at the option of the [s]ecured [p]arty". The security agreement was executed but defendant failed to perfect it by filing (see, UCC 9-302[1] ). C & H subsequently paid off the debt and for a time had a credit balance with plaintiff. However, by March 1986 when plaintiff learned that the debtors were insolvent, that the Mack truck had been sold and that the debt was unsecured, the outstanding balance due from C & H exceeded $17,000. Although the Waltzes appear to be effectively judgment-proof, defendant has proceeded on plaintiff's behalf against a third individual associated with C & H as either a principal or guarantor.
In the meantime, plaintiff commenced the instant action against defendant sounding in legal malpractice. Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of defendant's liability, but the motion was denied because plaintiff had failed to submit a copy of defendant's answer as required by CPLR 3212(b). Plaintiff then moved for leave to renew or reargue and Supreme Court, noting that the earlier motion had not been decided on its merits and declining to subordinate substance to form, considered and granted plaintiff partial summary judgment. Defendant appeals; we affirm.
At the outset defendant urges that Supreme Court abused its discretion when it allowed plaintiff to renew its motion. Given that denial of the motion originally was because of a procedural defect and not on the merits, Supreme Court's determination to grant renewal upon correction of the defect was not an abuse of discretion (see, Riggs v. Pursell, 74 N.Y. 370, 379).
As to the merits, defendan...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
A. Dubreuil and Sons, Inc. v. Town of Lisbon, 13779
...378, 381, 124 A. 38 (1924); Allegheny Mutual Casualty Co. v. State, 176 So.2d 362, 365 (Fla.App.1965); S. & D. Petroleum Co. v. Tamsett, 144 App.Div.2d 849, 850, 534 N.Y.S.2d 800 (1988); Farmers Elevator & Mercantile Co. v. Farm Builders, Inc., supra; see 17 Am.Jur.2d, Contracts § 271, p. F......
-
Sheehy v. New Century Mortg. Corp.
...who failed to file an answer, which led to a default judgment against client, acted negligently); S & D Petroleum Co. v. Tamsett, 144 A.D.2d 849, 534 N.Y.S.2d 800, 802 (App.Div.1988) (expert testimony not required to establish that lawyer retained to secure a debt rendered inadequate profes......
-
Hatfield v. Herz
...v. Carro, Spanbock, Kaster & Cuiffo, 259 A.D.2d 282, 686 N.Y.S.2d 404, 405-06 (1st Dep't 1999) (citing S & D Petroleum Co. v. Tamsett, 144 A.D.2d 849, 534 N.Y.S.2d 800 (3d Dep't 1988)). "However, the requirement that plaintiff come forward with expert evidence on the professional's duty of ......
-
Suppiah v. Kalish
...basis for judging the adequacy of the professional service' " ( id. at 283, 686 N.Y.S.2d 404, quoting S & D Petroleum Co. v. Tamsett, 144 A.D.2d 849, 850, 534 N.Y.S.2d 800 [1988] ). Here, the court is uniquely qualified and able to assess the adequacy of the legal services rendered, and req......