Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Norman A. GOLDBERG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Stanley A. MOSKOWITZ, et al., Defendants-Respondents.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered September 8, 1998, which, upon the prior grant of the respective motions of defendants Stanley A. Moskowitz, Michael A. Leichtling, Parker Chapin Flattau & Klimpl, L.L.P., Jeffrey A. Goldberg, and Tab K. Rosenfeld to dismiss the complaint, awarded said defendants judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered July 9, 1998, which, inter alia, granted the motions of the aforesaid defendants to dismiss the complaint as against them, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as superseded by the appeal from the ensuing judgment. Order, same court and Justice, entered on or about August 28, 1998, which granted the motion of defendant, Anthem Financial, Inc., to dismiss the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff's causes to set aside the February Transaction and the June Release based upon his claims of incapacity and unconscionability were properly dismissed since plaintiff sought out and was represented by counsel during the relevant period and was not deprived of a meaningful choice respecting his decision to enter either agreement (see, Matter of Bobst, 234 A.D.2d 7, 651 N.Y.S.2d 26, lv. dismissed 90 N.Y.2d 844, 660 N.Y.S.2d 870, 683 N.E.2d 776; see also, Gillman v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., 73 N.Y.2d 1, 10, 537 N.Y.S.2d 787, 534 N.E.2d 824). Pursuant to the terms of the June Release, plaintiff waived any claims he may have had against the Execulease defendants (Moskowitz, Leichtling, Goldberg), as well as defendants Parker Chapin and Anthem arising out of the February Transaction. While plaintiff's claims against his attorney for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract were not redundant of his legal malpractice claim, their dismissal was nonetheless proper. Plaintiff's breach of fiduciary claim based on his counsel's alleged misappropriation of $100,000 is flatly contradicted by documentary evidence (see, Fisher v. Maxwell Communications Corp., 205 A.D.2d 356, 613 N.Y.S.2d 369), and his breach of contract claim fails to contain an allegation that his counsel breached a promise to achieve a specific result (see, Sage Realty Corp. v. Proskauer Rose LLP, 251 A.D.2d 35, 675 N.Y.S.2d 14). Plaintiff failed to allege facts sufficient to support application of the continuous representation doctrine (see, Zaref v. Berk & Michaels, P.C., 192 A.D.2d 346, 347-348, 595 N.Y.S.2d 772), and, that being the case, the court properly dismissed plaintiff's legal malpractice claim as time-barred under the applicable three-year Statute of Limitations.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: June 08, 1999
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)