Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Polanco v. Greenstein & Milbauer, LLP
Citations: 2017 NY Slip Op 3707; 150 A.D.3d 449; 55 N.Y.S.3d 8Docket: 3949 309653/10
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; May 9, 2017; New York; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
In the case of Polanco v. Greenstein, Milbauer, LLP, the Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's denial of the defendant law firm's motion for summary judgment that aimed to dismiss the legal malpractice complaint filed by plaintiff Aracelis Polanco. The court previously found that allegations against the defendant—specifically, claims of negligence in advising Polanco regarding settlement of her personal injury case and the necessity of an MRI—sufficiently supported a legal malpractice cause of action. The court noted that the defendant did not fulfill its prima facie burden in the summary judgment motion. The legal expert retained by the firm failed to adequately address the foundation of Polanco's malpractice claim, disregarded her testimony about pre-settlement discussions, and inaccurately represented the attorney's testimony. Additionally, the opinion from the firm's radiologist regarding causation was deemed equivocal, acknowledging uncertainties about the connection between Polanco's injuries and the accident, particularly concerning a herniation. The court emphasized that, even if the firm had met its initial burden, the existence of triable issues of fact warranted the denial of the motion. This included considerations of the credibility of Polanco's expert, whose potential misconduct would affect credibility but not the admissibility of testimony. Furthermore, the surgeon's attribution of Polanco's injuries to an alternative cause created a factual dispute regarding causation. The appellate court dismissed the remaining arguments from the defendant as unpersuasive, thereby upholding the lower court's ruling. The decision was entered on May 9, 2017.