Legal Malpractice

Center of Gravity in Legal Malpractice

By (Andrew Lavoott Bluestone)

Details, Details!  Is this a Connecticut or a New York Case?  Is there standing or not?  Who has the right to sue the attorneys?  in JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,  -against- LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT JAY GUMENICK, P.C., ET AL.,08 Civ. 2154 (VM);UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK;2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53993;
May 26, 2010 we see the following:

"Under New York law, the relevant analytical approach to choice of law in tort actions is the "interest analysis," where "the law of the jurisdiction with the most significant interest in, or relationship to, the dispute" is applied. 3 Lazard Freres & Co. v. Protective Life ins. Co., 108 F.3d 1531, 1539 (2d Cir. 1997). And for contract claims, New York courts typically look to the "center of gravity" of the dispute or the "grouping of contacts" in the jurisdictions at issue, unless the policies underlying conflicting laws in a contract dispute are "readily identifiable and reflect strong governmental interests." Allstate, 613 N.E.2d at 940. Regardless of whether the center of gravity or interest analysis is applied, both require consideration of the facts and significant contacts underpinning the dispute. See id. ("[C]ritical to a sound [center of gravity] analysis is selecting the contacts that contain significance in the particular contract dispute."); see also Warshay v. Guinness PLC, 750 F. Supp. 628, 632 (S.D.N.Y. 1990), [*7] aff'd, 935 F.2d 1278 (2d Cir. 1991) ("[T]he facts or contacts which obtain significance in defining State interests are those which relate to the particular law in conflict.")
 

Full post as published by New York Attorney Malpractice Blog on June 10, 2010 (boomark / email).