Court Opinion

ID: 9966028
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-03 20:09:47.393038+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:49.182808
License: Public Domain

Scott v Leventhal
               2024 NY Slip Op 31543(U)
                      April 30, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 656211/2017
                  Judge: Debra A. James
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
                                                                                                                         INDEX NO. 656211/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 429                                                                                              RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/30/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. DEBRA A. JAMES                                                 PART   59
                                                                                       Justice
            ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------X      INDEX NO.          656211/2017
             PATRICIA SCOTT, AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF
             PATRICK FLEMING,                                                                        MOTION DATE         08/10/2022

                                                         Plaintiff,                                  MOTION SEQ. NO.       017 018

                                                 - V -
                                                                                                       DECISION + ORDER ON
             JASON LEVENTHAL and LEVENTHAL LAW GROUP, P.C.,
                                                                                                             MOTION
                                                         Defendants.
            ------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 017) 368, 369, 370, 371,
            372,373,374,375,376,377,378,379,380,381,382,383,384,385,386,388,390,391,392,393,394,
            395,396,397,398,399,400
            were read on this motion to/for                                        SUMMARY JUDGMENT (AFTER JOINDER)

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 018) 341, 342, 343, 344,
            345,346,347,348,349,350,351,352,353,354,355,356,357,358,359,360,361,362,363,364,365,
            366,367,389,401,402,403,404,405,406,407,408,409,410,411,412,413,414,415,416,417,418,
            419,420
            were read on this motion to/for                                                       JUDGMENT-SUMMARY

                                                                            ORDER

                      Upon the foregoing documents, it is

                      ORDERED that the motion of plaintiff for summary judgment

            in her favor                (motion sequence number 017)                                 is DENIED; and it is

            further

                      ORDERED that to the extent that it seeks to dismiss the first

            (breach of contract) and third (violation of Judiciary Law§ 487)

            causes of action of the Third Amended Complaint,                                                       the motion of

            defendants for summary judgment dismissing the complaint                                                         (motion

            sequence number 018)                         is GRANTED; and it is further

             656211/2017 SCOTT, PATRICIA vs. LEVENTHAL, ESQ., JASON                                                      Page 1 of 7
             Motion No. 017 018

                                                                            1 of 7
[* 1]
                                                                                    INDEX NO. 656211/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 429                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/30/2024

                   ORDERED that to the extent that it seeks to dismiss the

            second (breach of fiduciary duty sounding in legal malpractice)

            and third (fraud)           causes of action of the Third Amended

            Complaint, the motion of defendants to dismiss the complaint is

            DENIED; and it is further

                   ORDERED that counsel shall confer with the Clerk of Trial

            Assignment Part 40 to secure a mediation and/or trial date.

                                                         DECISION

                   This court previously dismissed plaintiff's causes of

            action for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty,

            holding that such causes of action were duplicative of

            plaintiff's legal malpractice cause of action.               See NYSCEF

            Document Number 286.               Such holdings are law of the case.      See

            Glynwill Investments, NV v Shearson Lehman Hutton,              Inc, 216 AD2d

            78, 79 (1 st Dept 1995)

                   Plaintiff's recasting the Third Amended Complaint to remove

            the legal malpractice cause of action and substitute and

            reassert another breach of contract claim (first cause of

            action) does not overcome such prior holding with respect to the

            breach of contract claim, as plaintiff has still not come

            forward with prima facie proof of any breach of contract by

            defendants, given, as found earlier, the provision of the

            retainer agreement dated September 8, 2015, that defendants

            could withdraw as counsel at any time before any lawsuit was

             656211/2017 SCOTT, PATRICIA vs. LEVENTHAL, ESQ., JASON                 Page 2 of 7
             Motion No. 017 018

                                                            2 of 7
[* 2]
                                                                                        INDEX NO. 656211/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 429                                                             RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/30/2024

            commenced, and,          in fact defendants never commenced a lawsuit on

            behalf of plaintiff's decedent.                     Nor does plaintiff's assertion

            about defendants' alleged breach of the implied covenant of good

            faith and fair dealing rescue her breach of contract cause of

            action.

                   With respect to the claim of breach of fiduciary duty

            (second cause of action), such cause of action sounds in legal

            malpractice, and such legal practice claim was not previously

            dismissed by this court.                 In that regard,      legal precedent holds

            that

                           "In the attorney liability context, the breach of
                           fiduciary duty claim is governed by the same standard
                           as a legal malpractice claim. Accordingly, to recover
                           damages against an attorney arising out of the breach
                           of the attorney's fiduciary duty, plaintiff must
                           establish the 'but for' element of malpractice."

            Knox v Aronson, Mayefsky & Sloan, LLP, 168 AD3d 70, 75-76                       (1 st

            Dept 2018)        (citations omitted).               Plaintiff comes forward with

            prima facie evidence that "but for" the failure of defendants to

            commence a lawsuit within the statute of limitations for battery

            (one year after the alleged August 15, 2016 battery) or to

            inform her of such deadline so that she might retain new counsel

            to commence a timely action, she would have recovered damages

            for battery in a lawsuit asserting that City Correction

            Department employees intentionally assaulted and battered her

            decedent son, causing injury to his testicles.                      Specifically,

             656211/2017 SCOTT, PATRICIA vs. LEVENTHAL, ESQ., JASON                     Page 3 of 7
             Motion No. 017 018

                                                            3 of 7
[* 3]
                                                                                         INDEX NO. 656211/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 429                                                              RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/30/2024

            plaintiff submits the records of Bellevue Hospital Center that

            states that plaintiff's decedent son was admitted to the

            hospital on August 16, 2015, with complaints that [prior to

            admission/11 AM, the day before] defendants' correction officers

            "kicked [him] in the balls 3 times",                      [and that] "patient noticed

            significant swelling ('swollen like a watermelon')" and that

            examination in hospital revealed "trauma to scrotum, now

            swelling and tenderness".                  As such evidence raises issues of

            fact with respect to plaintiff's claim of breach of fiduciary

            duty/legal malpractice, neither summary judgment dismissing such

            cause of action against defendants nor partial summary judgment

            of liability in favor of plaintiff is warranted.                      See Johnson v

            Suffolk County Police Department, 245 AD2d 340, 341                      (2d Dept

            1997) .

                   As to plaintiff's claim that defendants violated Judiciary

            Law§ 487(1), this court concurs with defendants that such claim

            lacks merit as plaintiff does not allege that defendants'

            alleged "deceit or collusion" occurred in the "context of "an

            action pending in a court"". Bill Birds, Inc v Stein Law Firm,

            PC ( 3 5 NY 3 d 1 7 3 , 1 7 8 [ 2 0 2 0 ] ) .    Instead plaintiff asserts

            misleading or false advice preceding defendants' withdrawal from

            representation, but not in the context of "an action pending in

            a court", which, the Court of Appeals in Bill Birds, Inc, ibid,

            found to be insufficient to state a claim cognizable as a

             656211/2017 SCOTT, PATRICIA vs. LEVENTHAL, ESQ., JASON                      Page 4 of 7
             Motion No. 017 018

                                                            4 of 7
[* 4]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 656211/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 429                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/30/2024

            violation of Judiciary Law§ 487.                          Moreover, contrary to

            plaintiff's argument, any alleged misrepresentations made by

            defendants in the instant action relate to credibility herein,

            as, Judiciary Law§ 487 pertains to representation of a client,

            and it is beyond peradventure that defendants no longer

            represent plaintiff.

                        With respect to the claim of fraud                     (fourth cause of action)

            of the Third Amended Complaint,                         plaintiff fails         to connect the

            alleged bribes of City Correction Department employees at Rikers

            Prison, which were the subject of New York Times articles of June

            2014,        and May and September                16,     2016,    to   her    assertions       that

            defendants accepted a bribe from Correction Department employees

            in exchange           for not      commencing a           lawsuit on her son's behalf,

            sometime           after    they   entered        into     a   retainer       with   her   son        on

            September 8,           2015.       See Pramer S. C .A.            v Abaplus     Inter Corp,           76

            AD3d 89, 94 (1 st Dept 2010).                Moreover, such newspaper articles are

            inadmissible hearsay.                 See Chong Min Mun v Soung Eun Hong,                            109

            AD3d 732, 733              (1 st Dept 2013).       However, given that defendants do

            not deny plaintiff's assertion (NYSCEF Document Number 369, p. 13

            [ f])       that    they     failed   to    turn    over       copies    of bank      statements

            recording their receipts for the period in question in response to

            plaintiff's discovery demands                     and the discovery orders of this

            court (NYSCEF Document Numbers 194 and 213), plaintiff is entitled

            to      a    negative       inference      (see    Cabrera-Perez          v    Promesa     Housing

             656211/2017 SCOTT, PATRICIA vs. LEVENTHAL, ESQ., JASON                                Page 5 of 7
             Motion No. 017 018

                                                            5 of 7
[* 5]
                                                                                              INDEX NO. 656211/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 429                                                                  RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/30/2024

            Development Fund Corp, 225 AD3d 464 [1 st Dept 2024]), which coupled

            with    circumstantial           evidence       proffered by plaintiff           concerning

            defendants' motives to withdraw from representing plaintiff son,

            creates a material issue of fact as to plaintiff's claim of fraud.

            See    Quality       Leasing       &   Management         Corp   v   American   Arbitration

            Association, 245 AD2d 30 (1 st Dept 1997).                       Given that such evidence

            is not disposi ti ve of the claim for                       fraud,    resolution of which

            raises issues of credibility,                    the court shall deny each party's

            motion for summary disposition of the fraud claim.

                   On May 1, 2023, plaintiff's attorney Richard Pu, Esq.,

            filed a "Notice of Change/Discharge of Attorney and Notice of

            Appearance", asserting that plaintiff would proceed prose.

            (NYSCEF Document Number 426).                    This court notes that such Notice

            is a nullity as plaintiff herself never consented thereto.                               Such

            Notice is without force and effect as plaintiff, counsel's

            client, did not sign such form or acknowledge her signature

            before a notary public, as required pursuant to CPLR §321(b)

            See Garafola v Mayoka, 151 AD3d 1018                       (2d Dept 2017). Instead

            such the form appears to have been filled out by counsel. Upon

            filing by plaintiff's counsel of a Notice of Substitution, which

            is duly signed and acknowledged by his client before a notary

            public, coupled with proof of service by overnight mail at her

            last known address of a signed copy thereof as well as a copy of

            her legal file on plaintiff from Richard Pu, Esq., which proof

             656211/2017 SCOTT, PATRICIA vs. LEVENTHAL, ESQ., JASON                           Page 6 of 7
             Motion No. 017 018

                                                            6 of 7
[* 6]
                                                                                                              INDEX NO. 656211/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 429                                                                             RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04 /3 0 / 2024

            Richard Pu, Esq., must post on NYSCEF, plaintiff may proceed pro

            se.     Thereafter, plaintiff prose must e-mail the Clerk of IAS

            Part 59 that she wishes to proceed prose (SFC-

            Part59Clerk@nycourts.gov ), research information about representing

            herself at (Legal-References.pdf(nycourts.gov) and contact the Help Center

            Help Center I NYCOURTS.GOV for assistance with e-f iling, as this

            laws uit is an E-Filed case.

                                                                          J)-~ f l - } ~
                                                                       20240430204 755DJ AMESDDB7FB56EB84 4C0F8A9880C 61 BA9E6D8

                     4/30/2024
                       DATE                                                      DEBRA A. JAMES, J.S.C.

                                      ~
             CHECK ONE:                   CASE DISPOSED                NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                          GRANTED         □ DENIED     GRANTED IN PART                      □ OTHER
             APPLICATION :                SETTLE ORDER                 SUBMIT ORDER

             CHECK IF APPROPRIATE :       INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN   FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT                □ REFERENCE

             656211/2017 SCOTT, PATRICIA vs. LEVENTHAL, ESQ., JASON                                           Page 7 of 7
             Motion No. 017 018

                                                            7 of 7
[* 7]