Adam Leitman Bailey Firm Sued by Trucking Business for $7M After Ex-Client's Trial Loss
The firm's former clients, Maurizio Oppedisano and his companies, were found liable for several million dollars in damages for wrongfully parking trucks on neighboring property.
August 28, 2019 at 04:40 PM
4 minute read
This article has been updated to clarify that the Bailey firm did not represent the client until the damages phase of the underlying case.
A Queens trucking businessman who was recently ordered to pay over $3.8 million in a dispute over industrial property has filed a legal malpractice claim against his former lawyers at Adam Leitman Bailey PC.
Maurizio Oppedisano and two of his companies on Tuesday filed a summons with notice in Manhattan Supreme Court seeking $7 million from Bailey's firm and its lawyer Colin Kaufman.
While the notice had few details, court papers in a property dispute lawsuit brought by Oppedisano show that he hired Judd Burstein, which is also representing him in the malpractice case, after Bailey's firm withdrew from the property dispute suit in March.
The Bailey firm is currently doing business as Desiderio, Kaufman & Metz after Adam Leitman Bailey was given a four-month suspension from the bar in April.
In the underlying lawsuit in Queens Supreme Court, Oppedisano and his companies Disano Trucking and Flushing Airport Holdings sued Frank Arnold, seeking adverse possession of a lot to the west of an abandoned Flushing airport in an industrial part of Queens. Oppedisano and his companies, initially represented by Blodnick, Fazio & Associates, said they had openly used Arnold's lot for years without objection and had legal rights to it.
During the Blodnick firm's representation of Oppedisano and the companies, Arnold won a summary judgment ruling on liability.
After the Blodnnick firm withdrew and Adam Leitman Bailey's firm came in to represent Oppedisano for a trial on damages, Arnold won $3.8 million, plus interest. Oppedisano and the companies he controlled had been leasing out Arnold's lot to other truckers and repair companies without approval and made hundreds of thousands of dollars in the process, argued Arnold, represented by Nixon Peabody.
In recent months, Oppedisano has given hints of dissatisfaction with his former lawyers on his case, saying in filings that he had a seventh-grade education and trusted his lawyers to get the case resolved. Oppedisano said in court filings, after Burstein began representing him, that he came to learn that his former lawyers didn't cross-examine Arnold and failed to line up an expert witness to contradict Arnold's, leading to a finding that Oppedisano and his companies were liable for years' worth of rent and taxes for Arnold's property.
"I was not advised by predecessor counsel that I had a right to appear at the trial in this case," he said in a May filing in support of a motion for a new trial. "In fact, I did not even learn that my prior attorneys had waived defendant's cross-examination until after-the-fact, when I saw it in the trial transcript. Because I never had a full and fair opportunity to actually explain to the court what happened in this case, I ask for a chance to do so now."
Oppendisano's new lawyers at Burstein's firm sought a new trial, saying the finding that he and his companies were liable for nearly $4 million "mistakenly presupposed that the entirety of [Arnold's lot] was occupied by all of the plaintiffs, when only a small fraction of it was used by one plaintiff and only for a short period of time."
Arnold's lawyers countered that Oppedisano and his companies had no basis to contest that they were all liable for the damages. They also said Oppodisano missed his chance to "actually explain" what happened because he fought tooth and nail to avoid a subpoena.
Queens Supreme Court Justice Marguerite Grays in June rejected Oppedisano's motion for a new trial.
Reached for comment Thursday, Kaufman, one of the two defendants named in the summons, noted that his firm came into the case after the court had already ruled against the clients on liability.
"We conducted a trial solely on how much money he would have to pay Mr. Arnold for his use and occupancy of Mr. Arnold's property," he said. "We vigorously defended Mr. Oppendisano's position, and the court levied what it deemed an appropriate penalty against Mr. Oppedisano."
Burstein didn't respond to comment requests Wednesday.
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
© 2024 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 AllPatent Trolls Come Under Increasing Fire in Federal Courts
Trump's SEC Overhaul: What It Means for Big Law Capital Markets, Crypto Work
Trending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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