Opinion
13468-13468A Index No. 650247/17 Case No. 2019-03606 2020-02593
03-30-2021
GARR SILPE, P.C., Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Robyn GORMAN, Defendant–Appellant.
Tarter Krinsky & Drogin LLP, New York ( Richard C. Schoenstein of counsel), for appellant. Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, New York ( Catherine M. Ryan of counsel), for respondent.
Tarter Krinsky & Drogin LLP, New York ( Richard C. Schoenstein of counsel), for appellant.
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, New York ( Catherine M. Ryan of counsel), for respondent.
Gische, J.P., Singh, Scarpulla, Mendez, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Kathryn E. Freed), entered July 29, 2019, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff's motion to dismiss the counterclaims for legal malpractice and breach of contract, and denied defendant's motion to file a second amended answer with counterclaims, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered on or about May 20, 2020, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant's motion for leave to file a third amended answer with counterclaims, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Plaintiff was hired mid-trial, after defendant had been represented by eight prior law firms, and at times represented herself. Defendant's conclusory allegations that plaintiff law firm failed to prepare for trial and gather evidence in her matrimonial action do not state a cause of action for legal malpractice ( see Barbara King Family Trust v. Voluto Ventures LLC, 46 A.D.3d 423, 424, 849 N.Y.S.2d 41 [1st Dept. 2007] ; see generally Rosner v. Paley, 65 N.Y.2d 736, 738, 492 N.Y.S.2d 13, 481 N.E.2d 553 [1985] [attorney's "selection of one of among several reasonable courses of action does not constitute malpractice"]). Defendant's retrospective complaints about plaintiff's recommendations and trial are an insufficient basis to show that plaintiff's decisions are actionable ( Rodriguez v. Fredericks, 213 A.D.2d 176, 178, 623 N.Y.S.2d 241 [1st Dept. 1995], lv denied 85 N.Y.2d 812, 631 N.Y.S.2d 288, 655 N.E.2d 401 [1995] ). Nor does defendant allege facts that would establish that, but for plaintiff's negligence, she would have obtained a more favorable result ( Robson & Miller, LLP v. Sakow, 121 A.D.3d 562, 563–564, 995 N.Y.S.2d 26 [1st Dept. 2014] ). We note that we largely affirmed on appeal the trial court's disposition ( Gorman v. Gorman, 187 A.D.3d 636, 134 N.Y.S.3d 330 [1st Dept. 2020] ). Further, the breach of contract counterclaim is duplicative of the malpractice counterclaim.
The court properly denied defendant's motions for leave to amend because the defects in the original pleading were not cured by either of the proposed amendments ( Meimeteas v. Carter Ledyard & Milburn LLP, 105 A.D.3d 643, 963 N.Y.S.2d 583 [1st Dept. 2013] ).
We have considered defendant's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.