CYNTHIA O'NEAL, ETC., plf-ap, v. MUCHNICK GOLIEB & GOLIEB, P.C. def-res

3818. CYNTHIA O'NEAL, ETC., plf-ap, v. MUCHNICK GOLIEB & GOLIEB, P.C. def-res — The Law Office of Perry M. Grossman, New York (Perry M. Grossman of counsel), for ap — Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, New York (Connor V. McDonald of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shlomo S. Hagler, J.), entered on or about February 17, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 to dismiss the legal malpractice claims based on the assumption of a lease and the failure to oppose summary judgment in an underlying action, the breach of fiduciary duty claims, and the Judiciary Law §487 claims, and denied plaintiff's application for leave to amend the complaint to add the Good Service Company, Inc. as a nominal defendant, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny defendants' motion as to the fiduciary duty and Judiciary Law §487 claims and so much of the malpractice claim as arose in connection with the assignment of a lease, and to grant plaintiff's application to amend, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

3818. CYNTHIA O’NEAL, ETC., plf-ap, v. MUCHNICK GOLIEB & GOLIEB, P.C. def-res — The Law Office of Perry M. Grossman, New York (Perry M. Grossman of counsel), for ap — Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, New York (Connor V. McDonald of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shlomo S. Hagler, J.), entered on or about February 17, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 to dismiss the legal malpractice claims based on the assumption of a lease and the failure to oppose summary judgment in an underlying action, the breach of fiduciary duty claims, and the Judiciary Law §487 claims, and denied plaintiff’s application for leave to amend the complaint to add the Good Service Company, Inc. as a nominal defendant, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny defendants’ motion as to the fiduciary duty and Judiciary Law §487 claims and so much of the malpractice claim as arose in connection with the assignment of a lease, and to grant plaintiff’s application to amend, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The allegation that, while representing plaintiff in the assignment-oflease negotiations, counsel secretly represented the counterparty so as to obtain favorable terms for the counterparty, which resulted in a lower-than-market price for the assignment, states a claim for legal malpractice (see Leggiadro, Ltd. v. Winston & Strawn, LLP, 119 AD3d 442 [1st Dept 2014]).

CYNTHIA O'NEAL, ETC., plf-ap, v. MUCHNICK GOLIEB & GOLIEB, P.C. def-res

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal