You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Florists' Mut. Ins. Co., Inc. v. Behman Hambelton, LLP

Citation: 2018 NY Slip Op 2556Docket: 6269 154427/16

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; April 12, 2018; New York; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

In this case, Florists' Mutual Insurance Company, Inc. filed a legal malpractice claim against Behman Hambelton, LLP, and others, which was ultimately dismissed by the Supreme Court of New York County on the basis that it was time-barred. The plaintiff contended that it was necessary to pursue an appeal in the underlying action before initiating the malpractice claim. This contention was dismissed, as the court referenced Grace v Law to establish that the appeal to the Workers' Compensation Board was unlikely to succeed. The appellate decision from the Workers' Compensation Board had been issued on October 29, 2013, allowing the plaintiff nearly two years to file a malpractice claim stemming from an incident in September 2012. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the lower court's dismissal on April 12, 2018. The ruling concluded that the malpractice claim was untimely, and no costs were awarded to either party.

Legal Issues Addressed

Effectiveness of Appeals in Underlying Actions

Application: The court referenced the ineffectiveness of an appeal to the Workers' Compensation Board as a factor in deciding the timeliness of the malpractice claim.

Reasoning: The court found this argument unpersuasive, referencing the case of Grace v Law, which indicated that the appeal to the Workers' Compensation Board was unlikely to succeed.

Requirement to Appeal Before Filing a Malpractice Claim

Application: The court found the plaintiff's argument that an appeal was necessary prior to filing the malpractice claim to be unpersuasive.

Reasoning: The plaintiff argued that it was required to appeal the underlying action before filing the malpractice claim. However, the court found this argument unpersuasive, referencing the case of Grace v Law.

Statute of Limitations in Legal Malpractice Claims

Application: The court dismissed the legal malpractice claim because it was filed beyond the statutory period allowed for such claims.

Reasoning: The Supreme Court of New York County, under Judge Robert R. Reed, granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that it was time-barred.