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.
Wang v. Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP
Citation: 2018 NY Slip Op 7062Docket: 7430 100481/17
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; October 23, 2018; New York; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
James Wang, the plaintiff-appellant, filed a case against Simon, Eisenberg, Baum, LLP and others, but the Appellate Division, First Department, upheld the lower court's ruling to dismiss his complaint. The dismissal was based on collateral estoppel, which barred Wang from relitigating claims regarding improper translation of his settlement acceptance in American Sign Language (ASL) and the subsequent settlement amount he found unacceptable. The Federal District Court had previously addressed and rejected these claims, a decision that the Second Circuit reviewed without finding error. Although Wang changed his action to allege legal malpractice instead of seeking to void the settlement, the factual basis remained the same as in the federal case, and the court noted that the change in legal theory did not alter the outcome since the underlying facts were identical. Wang did not present new evidence that had not already been considered in the federal courts, nor did he identify differences in applicable law. He argued that he lacked a full opportunity to present his case because he did not receive an ASL interpreter during oral arguments in the federal court; however, he did not demonstrate any evidence he was unable to present. The Second Circuit also found no necessity for oral argument regarding his instructions to his attorney about the settlement amount, and the court indicated that Wang could have hired a private ASL interpreter if needed. The court dismissed Wang's remaining arguments as lacking merit. The Appellate Division's decision was entered on October 23, 2018.