Appeals Court Overturns Malpractice Verdict, Finding No Error in Missing Tort Claims Notice
The appeals court said the evidence did not present a prima facie claim for legal malpractice, because plaintiff's claims against the Hazlet police department and one of its officers for malicious prosecution and spoliation were not ripe during the period that defendant represented her.
June 21, 2019 at 03:46 PM
5 minute read
The Appellate Division has overturned a legal malpractice verdict against an attorney accused of negligence for failing to file a tort claims notice on behalf of his client.
The Middlesex County judgment, entered against Spring Lake attorney Charles Shaw III in 2017, carried a damages award of $55,000. But the appeals court said the evidence did not present a prima facie claim for legal malpractice, because plaintiff Marianne Murphy's claims against the Hazlet police department and one of its officers for malicious prosecution and spoliation were not ripe during the period that Shaw represented her.
The final judgment was reversed and the case was remanded for entry of an order vacating the judgment and entering a directed verdict for Shaw.
Murphy retained Shaw in connection with a June 2010 car crash, road rage altercation and subsequent interaction with police, in which she was ticketed for failure to produce a vehicle registration and disorderly conduct.
But the scope of the retention was unclear, and she maintained she hired Shaw to represent her on the disorderly conduct and failure to produce a registration tickets, and for civil claims against the other driver, the two police officers who responded to the crash, and the Hazlet police department. But Shaw claimed he was only hired to represent Murphy on the municipal court citations of disorderly conduct and failure to produce a registration.
After meeting with Murphy, Shaw sent her a letter confirming he would represent her in the municipal court case. But Murphy believed Shaw was also representing her in connection with a claim against her auto insurance company for medical expenses related to the crash.
When Murphy's municipal court hearing was scheduled for a date in September 2010, Shaw repeatedly scheduled and rescheduled a meeting with Murphy to prepare for trial. He told her he would not be able to represent her at trial unless the hearing was rescheduled, because he had another trial scheduled for Superior Court in the same week. After the Superior Court trial was postponed, Shaw contacted Murphy to tell her he would be available to represent her at trial, but he was told that she had hired a new lawyer. Murphy terminated her relationship with Shaw on Sept. 22, 2010, after he refunded most of her retainer payment.
However, when Murphy appeared in municipal court, she did so without counsel, and was assigned a public defender. The charges against Murphy were dismissed.
Murphy filed a legal malpractice suit against Shaw in February 2013, claiming he breached his contract and duty owed to her by failing to file a tort claims notice against the police department and its officers.
Murphy then hired another attorney to bring an internal affairs complaint against the Hazlet police department and bring civil claims against the department, one of its officers and the other driver involved in the crash, Raeanne Martin. Although her attorney filed a tort claims notice, her suit against the police department and the officer were dismissed because the notice was untimely. And her suit against Martin ended in a no-cause judgment in September 2015, although the Appellate Division vacated the no-cause judgment and remanded for a new trial based on an incorrect jury charge in 2017.
In April 2016, a malpractice expert hired by Murphy, Thomas Dorn, issued a report expressing that he felt Shaw was negligent for failing to serve a tort claims notice on the police department.
In January 2017, a jury found Shaw did not breach his contract with Murphy, but was negligent.
At the Appellate Division, Shaw maintained that his representation of Murphy was limited to the municipal court case. Murphy argued that her ongoing communications with Shaw served to expand the scope of representation.
Judges Garry Rothstadt, Robert Gilson and Arnold Natali Jr. said Murphy's cause of action for malicious prosecution did not accrue until the underlying criminal proceeding came to an end. Therefore, a tort claims notice should have been filed no later than 90 days after March 2011, when the case against Murphy was dismissed. But that was “months after she terminated defendant's services as her attorney,” the panel wrote in an unsigned opinion. “Defendant therefore never had an obligation to file a notice for a malicious prosecution claim during the period he represent plaintiff because her claim had not yet ripened,” the court said.
The court issued a similar ruling for Shaw's alleged failure to file a tort claims notice with respect to Murphy's spoliation claims. She took issue with the police department's failure to provide recordings of the 911 calls related to the accident and road rage episode, and with its failure to preserve a miniature baseball bat that officers removed from her vehicle. Because the municipal court charges against Murphy were dismissed, no cause of action arose for spoliation during the period that Shaw represented Murphy, the appeals court said. The dismissal of the charges against her obviated any potential claim for spoliation because there was no longer any need or requirement for Hazlet or its officers to produce the 911 tapes or the bat. “Had there been a trial, and the items were not produced, plaintiff would at the very least have a claim for spoliation,” the panel said.
The lawyer for Murphy, Joseph Collini of Emolo & Collini in Paterson, did not respond to a request for comment.
Diana Manning of Bressler, Amery & Ross in Florham Park, who represented Shaw on appeal, said, “we are very pleased with the decision and we agree with the court's analysis.”
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 All$113K Sanction Award to Law Firm at Stake: NJ Supreme Court Will Consider 'Unsettled Law' Frivolous Litigation Question
4 minute readWhich Outside Law Firms Are Irreplaceable, and Which Should Have Gotten the Ax Years Ago?
4 minute readLargest Law Firms: New Jersey and Firmwide Attorney Count
Trending Stories
- 1The Growing PFAS Morass: Why Insurance Should Cover These Products Liability Claims
- 2Dallas Jury Awards $98.65M in Botham Jean Killing by Dallas Officer
- 3In Talc Bankruptcy, Andy Birchfield Skipped His Deposition. Could He Face Sanctions?
- 4Pharmaceutical Patents: Benefits and Challenges
- 5Where Do Web-Tracking Class Actions Belong? 8th Circuit Weighs the Issue
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