INGRAM YUZEK GAINEN CARROLL BERTOLOTTI LLP v. MCCULLAR (2024)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Gerald Lebovits, J.), entered May 3, 2023, which denied plaintiff law firm's motion to dismiss defendant's counterclaim for legal malpractice, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant alleges that plaintiff law firm negligently caused the commencement of guardianship proceedings over his longtime partner whom he hoped to marry, resulting in an onerous guardianship arrangement.

The court correctly denied plaintiff's motion to dismiss the counterclaim pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7).  Defendant pleaded with sufficient detail his counterclaim that plaintiff committed legal malpractice by, among other things, failing to respond to a cease-and-desist letter, failing to move to dismiss the guardianship petition, and failing to negotiate a more favorable settlement (see IMO Indus. v. Anderson Kill & Olick, 267 A.D.2d 10, 11, 699 N.Y.S.2d 43 [1st Dept. 1999]).  Moreover, it can be reasonably inferred from the allegations that plaintiff's negligence caused defendant's loss (see Garnett v. Fox, Horan & Camerini, LLP, 82 A.D.3d 435, 436, 918 N.Y.S.2d 79 [1st Dept. 2011]).

In addition, plaintiff's submission of documents from the underlying action do not conclusively establish a defense to the malpractice claim as a matter of law (see IMO Indus., 267 A.D.2d at 11, 699 N.Y.S.2d 43).  The documents showing that defendant consented to the guardianship and accepted the terms of the settlement do not preclude him from taking contrary positions in this action under the doctrine of judicial estoppel, as the premise of his counterclaim is that he made those statements based on plaintiff's negligent advice.

We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.