Jury Awards $343K in Legal Malpractice Suit by Purchaser of Polluted Property
Legal fees and interest could double the award, according to an attorney for the plaintiff.
February 20, 2020 at 04:49 PM
3 minute read
A Bergen County jury returned a $343,258 verdict Wednesday in a legal malpractice suit claiming attorney Robert Lysiak failed to warn about potential environmental contamination on a property purchased by his client.
The jury returned its verdict in a lawsuit brought by John Patalano after a three-day trial before Superior Court Judge Robert Wilson. The jury verdict represents the damages Patalano incurred due to the contamination—roughly $203,000 to retain an environmental lawyer, Howard Davis, and another $139,000 on cleanup of the property, said plaintiffs lawyer Kenneth Thyne of Roper & Thyne in Totowa. Thyne tried the case but his law partner, Angela Roper, assisted with preparation.
Patalano was seeking to open a Domino's pizza franchise when he retained Lysiak in September 1998 in connection with the purchase of a site in Dumont. At the time, the property included a small commercial building that was being used as a pizzeria. A liability expert testified for Patalano that Lysiak should have recommended conducting a test to detect the presence of underground storage tanks before buying the property, said Thyne.
He saw no need to conduct any inspections because he intended to gut the building and replace its wiring and mechanical systems, Thyne said. Five underground tanks were discovered after Patalano purchased the property, which was previously a gas station, said Thyne.
The regulatory process relating to the cleanup of the leaky tanks took nearly 20 years, and the state Department of Environmental Protection did not declare the project complete until 2019, said Thyne. Patalano entered an agreement with Lysiak to suspend the statute of limitations from 2004 to 2017. Lysiak previously had a solo practice in Emerson but is now retired.
"We expect that the court will award attorney's fees and interest which will more than double the verdict," with interest likely to be significant because so many years have passed since the events leading up to the suit, said Thyne.
Lysiak testified that his practice focused on residential real estate transactions, and he rarely got involved in commercial real estate, according to a plaintiff's liability expert report issued by Denville attorney Barry Levine. Lysiak testified that he had no written retainer agreement or written description of the scope of his representation of Patalano, Levine said.
Levine said Lysiak failed to look into the existence of underground tanks on the property despite disclaimers on that issue that he received from his client's mortgage lender and from a surveyor.
Lawyers have a duty to ascertain their clients' level of sophistication and to tailor their advice to that level, but Lysiak admitted he did not know if Patalano had ever purchased commercial real estate before, said Levine. Patalano had never purchased any other property besides his own home when he bought the property in question, and he was in the pizza business, so he lacked sufficient knowledge to know he should investigate contamination of the property, Levine said.
During the trial, Lysiak's lawyer, Christopher Carey of McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter in Newark, asserted that Patalano was a sophisticated businessman who did not need a lawyer to tell him to check for underground contamination before buying the property, according to Thyne. Carey also asserted that Lysiak's inclusion in the sales contract of a provision giving Patalano the right to have the property inspected was sufficient, Thyne said.
Defense lawyer Carey did not respond to requests for a comment on the verdict.
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 AllAppellate Div. Follows Fed Reasoning on Recusal for Legislator-Turned-Judge
4 minute readChiesa Shahinian Bolsters Corporate Practice With 5 From Newark Boutique
5 minute read'A Mockery' of Deposition Rules: Walgreens Wins Sanctions Dispute Over Corporate Witness Allegedly Unfamiliar With Company
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1King & Spalding E-Discovery Director Jumps to Nebraska Women-Owned Firm
- 2Nation's Largest Utility Parts Ways With CLO Who Helped It Navigate Bribery Scandal
- 3Advocates Renew Campaign for Immigrant Right to Counsel in New York
- 4From ‘Unregulated’ to ‘A Matter of Great Concern’: PFAS Regulation under Biden
- 5Public Interest Lawyers in NY Fear Rollback of Federal Loan Assistance in '25, Ask Gov. to Add $4M to State Program
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