ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Malpractice Blogs -> New York Attorney Malpractice Blog

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Legal Malpractice

: New York Attorney Malpractice Blog

Is This a Case of the Cobbler's Son in Legal Malpractice?

By (Andrew Lavoott Bluestone)

ADVERTISEMENTS

"The Cobbler's Son had no shoes..." is an ancient way of saying that people attend to the needs of others, including clients, while ignoring the requirements closer to home.  While the decision does not make this analogy, nor does it explicitly hinge the reasoning on the lack of an affidavit of plaintiff, we wonder whether there is some connection in a legal malpractice case which had the lack of an affidavit of plaintiff as a central motif in the underlying action.

In McComsey v. Kera Graubard & Litzman we see the plight of a Manhattan tenant.  She rented an apartment on East 67th Street, and obtained a two year lease, with a renewal clause.  Renewal required a certified or registered letter by a date certain.  Instead, plaintiff left a renewal notice in the spot where she left the rent.  After much litigation in both Supreme Court and in Housing Court, plaintiff lost, and had to pay a hefty legal bill to the landlord's attorneys.

She sued her attorneys.  One central issue was that while she was traveling in Europe a motion for summary judgment was filed, and no affidavit was submitted in opposition.  Her fault or the attorneys?

When the client sued the attorneys, they moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7)  and submitted affidavits.  But, a motion under CPLR 3211(a)(7) is on the sufficiency of the pleadings, no?  Do you need an affidavit in opposition, as if it were CPLR 3212?

Left unanswered, the court did state: 'Plaintiff opposes Defendant's motion but notably fails to submit an affidavit from Plaintiff and instead relies on counsel's affirmation.  Was the malpractice attorney wrong to respond in this way?

There is a tension between responding strongly to a CPLR 3211(a)(7) motion and going over the edge, "charting a course to summary judgment" and impelling the Court to consider the 3211 motion under 3212 rules. This is a danger, and one not to be lightly discarded as impossible.

Full post as published by New York Attorney Malpractice Blog on December 30, 2009 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0223 secs (new cache)