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.

Ryan D. Gesten. Courtesy photo. Ryan D. Gesten. Courtesy photo.

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: