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.
Maurice ROSENSTRAUSS, executor of the estate of Patricia J. Purgess, respondent, v. JACOBS & JACOBS, etc., et al., appellants.
In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, (1) the defendants Jacobs & Jacobs and Michael A. Jacobs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Owen, J.), dated October 30, 2006, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, and (2) the defendants Markovits & Markovits and Robert L. Markovits separately appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of the same order as denied their separate motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.
Patricia J. Purgess retained the defendants to represent her in an underlying medical malpractice action, which she commenced on November 4, 1993. In an order dated March 20, 1996, the Supreme Court, Orange County, dismissed that action pursuant to CPLR 3404. The defendants neither moved to vacate that order nor perfected an appeal therefrom. Nearly 11 years thereafter, Purgess moved to vacate the aforementioned order of dismissal. In an order dated April 24, 2007, the Supreme Court denied her motion as barred by the doctrine of laches. In a companion appeal, this Court is affirming the order dated April 24, 2007 (see Rosenstrauss v. Women's Imaging Center of Orange County, 56 A.D.3d 454, 866 N.Y.S.2d 759 [decided herewith] ).
“In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the attorney ‘failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession’ and that the attorney's breach of this duty proximately caused [the] plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages” (Rudolf v. Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 N.Y.3d 438, 442, 835 N.Y.S.2d 534, 867 N.E.2d 385, quoting McCoy v. Feinman, 99 N.Y.2d 295, 301-302, 755 N.Y.S.2d 693, 785 N.E.2d 714; see Northrop v. Thorsen, 46 A.D.3d 780, 782, 848 N.Y.S.2d 304). “To establish causation, a plaintiff must show that he or she would have prevailed in the underlying action or would not have incurred any damages, but for the lawyer's negligence” (Rudolf v. Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 N.Y.3d at 442, 835 N.Y.S.2d 534, 867 N.E.2d 385). “An attorney has the responsibility to ‘investigate and prepare every phase’ of his [or her] client's case” (Parksville Mobile Modular v. Fabricant, 73 A.D.2d 595, 598, 422 N.Y.S.2d 710, quoting Giaramita v. Flow Master Mach. Corp., 234 N.Y.S.2d 817, 818).
In support of their separate motions, the defendants failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316, 476 N.E.2d 642). The defendants' contention that they cannot be held liable because the underlying medical malpractice action is still viable is without merit, as that action has been dismissed. Moreover, the argument of the defendants Markovits & Markovits and Robert L. Markovits (hereinafter together the Markovits defendants), that they cannot be liable because they merely referred Purgess to the other defendants, is belied by the retainer agreement, in which the Markovits defendants agreed to share any contingency fee in the medical malpractice action. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants' separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
RIVERA, J.P., FLORIO and CHAMBERS, JJ., concur. LIFSON, J., separately concurs on constraint of the decision on the companion appeal upholding the dismissal of the underlying medical malpractice action (see Rosenstrauss v. Women's Imaging Center of Orange County, 56A.D.3d 454, 866 N.Y.S.2d 759 [decided herewith] ).
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: November 05, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)