Opinion
10-P-2219
02-02-2012
AN SOKOLOVSKA v. ADAM DASH.
NOTICE: Decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28 are primarily addressed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, rule 1:28 decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 1:28, issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
Upon review of the briefs and record appendix, nothing has been made to appear to cause us to disturb the judgment entered below in the plaintiff's legal malpractice action. The circumstances of this case are controlled in material respects by the reasoning articulated in Frankston v. Denniston, 74 Mass. App. Ct. 366, 373 (2009).
An Sokolovska retained attorney Adam Dash in 2002 in connection with a dispute between herself and her neighbors over the neighbors' renovation work, which, Sokolovska alleged, caused significant damage to her unit and a common wall.
In December, 2003, the defendants in the underlying matter filed a summary judgment motion asserting that because Sokolovska had replaced her roof, the defendants were unable to inspect, requesting a spoliation sanction. Sokolovska complained that Dash never explained to her what spoliation was or informed her that she had a duty to preserve the materials or allow inspection.
By December, 2003, apparently after the defendants had filed their spoliation motion, Sokolovska became thoroughly dissatisfied with Dash's representation and fired him; she then proceeded pro se.
A few months later, in June, 2004, Sokolovska received notice that she had lost her lawsuit, as the defendants' summary judgment motion had been allowed. Sokolovska filed the instant malpractice action against Dash in April, 2007.
Sokolovska does not dispute that she was aware that the spoliation summary judgment motion was filed in December, 2003, nor that she fired Dash that same month and entered her appearance pro se.
Sokolovska, in her brief, acknowledges that she was 'dissatisfied' with Dash's representation almost from the beginning of his representation, and, in particular, of her having been specifically informed by at least late 2002 that Dash had failed to name all of the relevant defendants.
Sokolovska alleged Dash made 'horrible' mistakes and charged too much.
In short, the record reflects that Sokolovska's cause of action arose in December, 2003, when she knew or should have known of Dash's unsatisfactory performance, and that her lawsuit against Dash was not filed until April, 2007. The time between 2003 and 2007 exceeds the permissible statutory time limitation for bringing an action for legal malpractice.
Judgment affirmed.
By the Court (Berry, Brown & Grainger, JJ.),