Damages Trial To Weigh Sanction Against Broward Lawyer in Legal Malpractice Case
Stuart B. Yanofsky is accused of failing to let his client know about an adverse ruling in a divorce case until it was too late to appeal.
August 06, 2019 at 02:38 PM
4 minute read
Plantation lawyer Stuart B. Yanofsky will face a jury trial to decipher whether damages are warranted over his work on a Broward divorce case, the Fourth District Court of Appeal has ruled.
Yanofsky was accused of failing to let his client Andrew Isaacs know about an adverse ruling until it was too late to appeal, according to the court order.
Isaacs filed a legal malpractice complaint against Yanofsky in 2014, claiming the attorney’s alleged negligence meant he’d been hit with a $87,300 bill for excess child support, and that he had lost his 50% stake in a $200,000 property. Isaacs also claimed emotional distress, having spent two nights in jail for failing to comply with that order, according to his attorney.
Yanofsky has denied any wrongdoing.
“I don’t believe that there is any evidence, nor is there going to be any evidence, of damage,” Yanofsky said.
But so far, two courts have ruled against the Broward lawyer.
The Fourth DCA found the trial court was right to find Yanofsky liable in the malpractice case, and to sanction him by striking his pleadings for failing to file responses to discovery requests by deadline.
Yanofsky produced a case file when he was deposed, but the trial court found that fell short of his obligation to respond to a formal request for documents. He was also publicly reprimanded in 2014 after a judge held him in contempt for failing to respond to Florida Bar inquiries on time.
But in the legal malpractice case, the appellate panel reversed an award of $249,969 for Isaacs. Even though the panel agreed Yanofsky had committed malpractice, it sided with the lawyer’s argument that he was entitled to a jury trial on damages that aren’t liquidated, despite a default judgment in his former client’s favor.
According to the Fourth DCA, in determining damages, the trial court shouldn’t have relied solely on Isaacs’ affidavit—a pleading that Yanofsky had moved to strike, alleging it was improper proof.
Issacs retained attorney Ryan D. Gesten, shareholder with George Gesten McDonald in Lake Worth after the lower court hit Yanofsky with sanctions.
Gesten said he was surprised by part of the Fourth DCA’s ruling but still believes there was a valid basis for the trial court’s final summary judgment, especially since Yanofsky didn’t file an affidavit in opposition.
“Despite our surprise that the appellate court reversed the damages portion of the judgment, even though a transcript of the proceedings was unavailable, we are pleased that the appellate court affirmed the sanctions order and liability, and look forward to a jury trial on damages,” he said.
After Gesten files a notice of readiness for trial, he said he’ll decipher damages with experts, who could recommend more than the original $249,969 Isaacs was awarded. If successful, Gesten might move for attorney fees, which he estimates could reach six figures after a trial.
Yanofsky said he plans to depose Isaacs—a move he said the plaintiff had resisted earlier in the case.
Yanofsky also claimed Isaacs has challenged every effort he’d made to stop representing him—allegedly in an effort to avoid paying child support. Though case files in the divorce case are confidential, Yanofsky is listed as active in the case, despite having moved to withdraw in 2016.
Fourth DCA Judge Jeffrey T. Kuntz wrote the appellate opinion, with Chief Judge Spencer D. Levine and Judge Dorian K. Damoorgian concurring.
Read the court opinion:
More appeals:
11th Circuit Chief Judge Concurs Specially With Himself in Ruling on Royal Caribbean Rape Case
Florida Judge Warns Against Using Case Law, Not Statutes, to Support Hearsay Exceptions
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllHolland & Knight Hires Former Davis Wright Tremaine Managing Partner in Seattle
3 minute readRFK Jr. Will Keep Affiliations With Morgan & Morgan, Other Law Firms If Confirmed to DHHS
3 minute readPlaintiffs Attorneys Awarded $113K on $1 Judgment in Noise Ordinance Dispute
4 minute readLocal Boutique Expands Significantly, Hiring Litigator Who Won $63M Verdict Against City of Miami Commissioner
3 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250