From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Reed v. Finkelstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 3, 2003
304 A.D.2d 329 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Summary

holding that an issue of fact existed as to referring attorneys' responsibilities in malpractice action when they practiced in the same state and specialized in that same subject area as referred attorney

Summary of this case from Wells v. Mattox

Opinion

680

April 3, 2003.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered April 29, 2002, which, in an action for legal malpractice based on an allegedly incompetent application for leave to serve a late notice of claim in an underlying medical malpractice action, denied defendant-appellant referring law firm's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

David S. Pollack, for plaintiff-respondent.

Dawn C. DeSimone, for defendants-appellants.

Before: Buckley, P.J., Tom, Rosenberger, Ellerin, Williams, JJ.


The motion was properly denied on the ground that an issue of fact exists as to the nature and extent of appellants' responsibilities in the underlying action. Appellants' reliance on Wildermann v. Wachtell ( 149 Misc. 623, affd 241 A.D. 812), which held that a referring attorney could not be held liable for the referred attorney's negligence in a foreign forum in which the referring attorney did not practice, is misplaced. Here, the referring firm, which specializes in personal injury, and the referred firm, which specializes in medical malpractice, are both located in New York, specialize in similar areas, and practice in the same courts under the same rules and before the same judges. Certainly, notices of claim and applications to file them late are a routine aspect of practice of many personal injury lawyers. We note that appellant firm's name appears on the retainer agreement along with that of the referred firm, that the record contains no writing between the two firms on the sharing of responsibilities or the fee, and that any prior arrangements between them is a matter within their exclusive knowledge. We have considered appellants' other arguments and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Reed v. Finkelstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 3, 2003
304 A.D.2d 329 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

holding that an issue of fact existed as to referring attorneys' responsibilities in malpractice action when they practiced in the same state and specialized in that same subject area as referred attorney

Summary of this case from Wells v. Mattox
Case details for

Reed v. Finkelstein

Case Details

Full title:BRANDON REED, ETC., ET AL., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. FINKELSTEIN…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Apr 3, 2003

Citations

304 A.D.2d 329 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
756 N.Y.S.2d 577

Citing Cases

Wells v. Mattox

malpractice nor can they recover from the engaged law firm for such malpractice"); Noris v. Silver, 701 So.2d…