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.
Liporace v. Neimark & Neimark, LLP
Citation: 2018 NY Slip Op 4668Docket: 153323/15 5409 5408
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; June 26, 2018; New York; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
In *Liporace v Neimark, Neimark, LLP*, the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's order denying the defendants' motions to dismiss the legal malpractice claims against both the Budin defendants and the Neimark defendants. The court concluded that the plaintiffs adequately met the minimum pleading requirements for a legal malpractice claim. The Budin defendants, who served as successor counsel, had the opportunity to protect the plaintiff's rights by potentially seeking discretionary leave to serve a late notice of claim under General Municipal Law § 50-e(5). The court noted that whether the Budin defendants would have succeeded in such a motion must be determined by a trier of fact. The decision stated that the Neimark defendants' failure to timely serve a notice of claim on the New York City Department of Education in the related personal injury action could be a proximate cause of the plaintiff's alleged damages. The court emphasized that the substitution of the Budin defendants as counsel did not absolve the Neimark defendants of potential liability unless it could be shown that a motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim would have been successful. The prior decision and order dated January 9, 2018, was recalled and vacated, reaffirming the current ruling. The case showcases key issues of legal malpractice related to timely notice requirements and the implications of counsel substitution.