From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Summerville v. Lipsig

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 30, 2000
270 A.D.2d 213 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

March 30, 2000.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered March 15, 1999, which granted defendants' motion to dismiss this action for legal malpractice on the ground that it does not state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Harold Samuel Herman, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Wendy B. Shepps, for Defendants-Respondents.

ROSENBERGER, J.P., WILLIAMS, ANDRIAS, BUCKLEY, FRIEDMAN, JJ.


Plaintiff, an innocent bystander to a bank robbery, was shot by an off-duty police officer, in violation of established police guidelines governing the use of deadly force (Summerville v. City of New York, 257 A.D.2d 566, lv denied 94 N.Y.2d 755). He retained defendant law firm, which filed a suit on his behalf against the City but not against the officer. After the law firm was relieved as counsel, new counsel tried the case. The jury awarded plaintiff $29,257,316.16 in compensatory damages, which was reduced by the trial court, with plaintiff's consent, to $5,057,316.16, and, after this action was instituted, reduced again by the Appellate Division, Second Department, to $3,057,316.16 (id.). Plaintiff now alleges that the law firm's failure to join the officer deprived him of the opportunity to seek, among other things, punitive damages in the underlying action, which are not recoverable from a municipal defendant (see, Sharapata v. Islip, 56 N.Y.2d 332), and argues that the law firm is therefore liable to him in malpractice for the loss of this claim. We do not agree. It would be "illogical" to hold the law firm liable for causing the loss of a claim for punitive damages which are meant to punish the wrongdoer and deter future similar conduct (Cappetta v. Lippman, 913 F. Supp. 302, 306). Recognition of plaintiff's claim would not further the purpose of punitive damages to punish and deter (cf., Home Ins. Co. v. American Home Prods. Corp., 75 N.Y.2d 196). We have considered plaintiff's other arguments and find them unavailing.

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


Summaries of

Summerville v. Lipsig

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 30, 2000
270 A.D.2d 213 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Summerville v. Lipsig

Case Details

Full title:James Summerville, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mildred S. Lipsig, et al.…

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

Date published: Mar 30, 2000

Citations

270 A.D.2d 213 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
704 N.Y.S.2d 598

Citing Cases

Tri-G v. Burke, Bosselman Weaver

The court recognized that courts in New York and California have held, based on public policy, that lost…

Expansion Pointe Properties Limited Partnership v. Procopio, Cory, Hargreves & Savitch LLP

" ( Ferguson, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 1052 fn. 2.) Other states also bar the recovery of lost punitive…