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.
George Eagan GINTHER, Individually and as Trustee, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Denis A. SCINTA, Esq. and Lipsitz, Green, Fahringer, Roll, Salisbury & Cambria, LLP, Defendants-Respondents.
Plaintiff retained defendants to represent him in matters relating to a matrimonial action, and he thereafter commenced this action to recover damages for defendants' alleged legal malpractice, breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. We agree with plaintiff that Supreme Court erred in granting that part of defendants' motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the claim for overbilling on the ground that the parties' retainer agreement required that such claim was a matter for arbitration. The terms of the retainer agreement permit but do not require plaintiff to seek arbitration of fee disputes. We therefore modify the order accordingly.
We further conclude, however, that the court properly granted those parts of defendants' motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the remainder of the complaint. Defendants established as a matter of law that they had no attorney-client relationship with plaintiff as trustee of four trusts established for the benefit of his children or with the trusts themselves (see generally Chinello v. Nixon, Hargrave, Devans & Doyle, LLP, 15 A.D.3d 894, 895, 788 N.Y.S.2d 750; Wei Cheng Chang v. Pi, 288 A.D.2d 378, 380, 733 N.Y.S.2d 471, lv. denied 99 N.Y.2d 501, 752 N.Y.S.2d 588, 782 N.E.2d 566). Thus, defendants are not liable for the alleged legal malpractice, breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty concerning those trusts (see generally Wei Cheng Chang, 288 A.D.2d at 381, 733 N.Y.S.2d 471). Even assuming, arguendo, that defendants owed plaintiff a duty in connection with the trusts, we conclude that defendants established that they did not breach any such duty or cause plaintiff to sustain any damages in connection therewith (see generally Tabner v. Drake, 9 A.D.3d 606, 609, 780 N.Y.S.2d 85).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously modified on the law by denying the motion in part and reinstating the claim for overbilling and as modified the order is affirmed without costs.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
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: July 07, 2006
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth 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)