Shopsin v. SIBEN & SIBEN, ESQS.
Decision Date | 31 January 2000 |
Citation | 268 A.D.2d 578,702 N.Y.S.2d 610 |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Parties | BARBRO SHOPSIN, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>SIBEN & SIBEN, ESQS., et al., Appellants. |
Sullivan, J. P., Krausman, McGinity and H. Miller, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
An attorney may be liable for malpractice where there is proof that he or she failed to exercise the skill commonly exercised by an ordinary member of the legal community, and that but for such negligence, the plaintiff would have prevailed in the underlying action (see, McCoy v Tepper, 261 AD2d 592; Marshall v Nact, 172 AD2d 727). A prima facie case requires proof of the defendant's negligence, that such negligence was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's loss, and actual damages (see, Rau v Borenkoff, 262 AD2d 388). For a defendant in a legal malpractice action to succeed on a motion for summary judgment, evidence must be submitted in admissible form establishing that the plaintiff is unable to prove at least one of these essential elements (see, Ippolito v McCormack, Damiani, Lowe & Mellon, 265 AD2d 303; Tibodeau v Abrahams, 260 AD2d 367).
The defendants failed to sustain their burden of demonstrating that the plaintiff is unable to prove one of the essential elements of a malpractice claim. "An attorney may be liable for his ignorance of the rules of practice, for his failure to comply with conditions precedent to suit, for his neglect to prosecute or defend an action, or for his failure to conduct adequate legal research" (McCoy v Tepper, supra, at 593). The plaintiff claims that the defendants did not perform adequate legal research, which resulted in their failure to raise the issue of whether a deed involved in the underlying litigation was intended to operate as a mortgage rather than as an absolute conveyance of the plaintiff's interest in the subject property (see, Real Property Law § 320; Gioia v Gioia, 234 AD2d 588; Basile v Erhal Holding Corp., 148 AD2d 484). Contrary to their contention, the defendants did not establish, as a matter of law, that their failure to raise that issue in the underlying litigation was not negligent. Moreover, an issue of fact is presented as to whether the defendants' failure to raise this issue was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's loss.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hatfield v. Herz
...Ostriker v. Taylor, Atkins & Ostrow, 258 A.D.2d 572, 685 N.Y.S.2d 470, 471 (2d Dep't 1999); see also Shopsin v. Siben & Siben, 268 A.D.2d 578, 702 N.Y.S.2d 610, 611 (2d Dep't 2000). Although Herz does not contest that he owed a duty of care to Hatfield, he shall be entitled to summary judgm......
-
Saxon Mortg. Servs., Inc. v. Hamilton
...Lew v. Greenberg, 19 A.D.3d 462 (2nd Dept. 2005); see, also, Suydam v. O'Neill, 276 A.D.2d 549 (2nd Dept. 2000); Shopsin v. Siben & Siben, 268 A.D.2d 578 (2nd Dept. 2000). "In other words, a plaintiff in a legal malpractice action must demonstrate that the attorney failed to exercise that d......
-
Reisner v. Litman & Litman, P.C.
...the defendant attorney's negligence. Siciliano v. Forchelli & Forchelli, 17 AD3d 343, 345 (2nd Dept.2005), citing Shopsin v. Siben & Siben, 268 A.D.2d 578 (2nd Dept.2000); Budget Installment Corp., v. Levy, Ehrlich & Kronenberg, 259 A.D.2d 649 (2nd Dept.1999). However, “[t]he failure to dem......
-
In re Tcw/Camil Holding L.L.C.
...or defend an action, or failure to conduct adequate legal research. Hatfield, 109 F.Supp.2d at 180; Shopsin v. Siben & Siben, 268 A.D.2d 578, 702 N.Y.S.2d 610, 612 (N.Y.App.Div.2000). 11. Failure to properly investigate, evaluate, and advise a client can also establish an attorney's failure......
-
The Gambler Breaks Even: Legal Malpractice in Complicated Estate Planning Cases
...333 U.S. 591 (1948)). [212]. See, e.g., Smith v. Lewis, 530 P.2d 589, 595 (Cal. Ct. App. 1975); see also Shopsin v. Siben & Siben, 702 N.Y.S.2d 610, 612 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000) ("An attorney may be liable for . . . his failure to conduct adequate legal research." (quoting McCoy v. Tepper, 690......