Pursuant to Part 130 , attorneys are obligated to undertake an investigation of a case. But is an attorney responsible for ignorance of facts which the client neglected to disclose? “No,” says the Commercial Division.
In a recent decision by Justice Andrew Borrok, the Commercial Division discussed this very issue. In Morgan and Mendel
Winning at the blame game is difficult to do. This holds e
specially true where the “blame game” is actually a claim for legal malpractice.
In a recent decision, the First Department affirmed Justice Sherwood’s Orders, which granted defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint against them. In Binn v. Muchnick, Golieb & Golieb, P.C.,
In a legal malpractice claim brought by Plaintiff, an Australian investment bank against Morrison & Foester, claiming that the law firm did not conduct due diligence in uncovering material misrepresentations pertaining to Plaintiff’s underwriting of a public stock offering of Puda Coal, Inc., Justice Scarpulla, in the New York County Supreme Court (Index No.: 650988/15)
CPLR 3211(a)(1) provides for the dismissal of a claim so long as the defense is based upon “documentary evidence”. We’ve seen this used successfully in mortgage note cases, (e.g., Bronxville Knolls, Inc. v. Webster Town Center Partnership, [1st Dep’t 1995]), as well as lease litigation (e.g., 150 Broadway N.Y. Assocs., L.P. v. Bodner