Summary
Dismissing a complaint for legal malpractice based on a missed statute of limitations because, although the plaintiff contacted the attorneys regarding a malpractice claim, there was never any agreement to undertake representation of the plaintiff.
Summary of this case from In re Pennsylvania Gear CorporationOpinion
June 25, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Albany County.
Petitioner's claims that he was denied a fair hearing and that the Hearing Officer was not impartial were not preserved for our review insofar as they were not raised at the hearing or on administrative appeal when any errors could have been corrected (see, Matter of Finn v. Leonardo, 160 A.D.2d 1074; Matter of Bates v. Coughlin, 145 A.D.2d 854, lv denied 74 N.Y.2d 602). In any event, his contention concerning the Hearing Officer's failure to investigate the credibility and reliability of a confidential informant is misplaced given the fact that confidential information played no part in the filing of charges against petitioner or in the determination of guilt (see, Matter of Siders v. Le Fevre, 145 A.D.2d 874). There is also no support in the record for petitioner's claim that the Hearing Officer was biased or that the outcome of the hearing flowed from any alleged bias (see, Matter of Nieves v. Coughlin, 157 A.D.2d 943). Finally, the misbehavior report, along with the accompanying investigative report which was based upon information given by the victim and which was also confirmed by the victim, provided substantial evidence to support the finding of guilt (see, Matter of Foster v. Coughlin, 76 N.Y.2d 964; Matter of Colon v. Coughlin, 147 A.D.2d 802).
Weiss, P.J., Levine, Mercure, Mahoney and Casey, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.