Komlosi v. Burchetta, Broffman, Collins & Hanley, LLP

Related Cases

Brignoli v. Balch, Hardy & Scheinman, Inc.
Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a (Komisar)
David Golia Paladin v. Frank Finnerty, Chief Counsel Lawton Squires, Assistant Counsel Ruthann Geary, Assistant Counsel Catherine T. England, Chairwoman for the Second Judicial Department's 10th Judicial District, in Their Official and Individual Capacities, and in Their Successors in Interest Victor Levin and Michael F. Sperendi, Former Chairmen of the Committee on Grievances, Bar Association of Nassau County, New York, Inc., in Their Official and Individual Capacities, and in Their Successors in Interest Robert H. Straus, Chief Counsel, New York State Grievance Committee for the Second Judicial Department's 10th and 11th Judicial Districts, in His Official and Individual Capacity and in His Successor in Interest Gary Casella, Chief Counsel for the New York State Grievance Committee for the Second Judicial Department's 9th Judicial District, in His Official and Individual Capacity and in His Successor in Interest Honorable Guy J. Mangano, Presiding Justice in His Capacity as Chief Administrative Officer of the Second Judicial Department, in His Individual and Official Capacity and in His Successor in Interest Mark Ochs, Chief Attorney, Committee on Professional Standards for the Third Judicial Department, in His Individual and Official Capacity and in His Successor in Interest Honorable A. Franklin Mahoney, Presiding Justice in His Capacity as Chief Administrative Officer of the Third Judicial Department in His Official and Individual Capacity and in His Successor in Interest Gerald Larusso, Chief Attorney, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Fourth Judicial Department, in Both His Official and Individual Capacity and in His Successor in Interest Honorable John Callahan, Acting Presiding Justice in His Capacity as Chief Administrative Officer of the Fourth Judicial Department, in His Official and Individual Capacity and in His Successor in Interest Hal R. Lieberman, Chief Counsel, Department Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department, in His Official and Individual Capacity and in His Successor in Interest Honorable Francis T. Murphy, Presiding Justice in His Capacity as Chief Administrative Officer of the First Judicial Department, in His Official and Individual Capacity and in His Successor in Interest Matthew T. Crosson, Chief Administrator of the Courts for the State of New York ("Office of Court Administration" or "Oca"), in His Official and Individual Capacity and in His Successors in Interest
Backer v. Bouza Falco Co.
Matter of Verdugo v. Schwartz Goldstone & Campisi, LLP

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Rosalyn Richter, J), entered August 13, 2003, which, in an action for legal malpractice arising out of underlying actions for malicious prosecution, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, and denied plaintiffs cross motion to amend the complaint and for a stay of proceedings pending his retention of an attorney, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, who prevailed in a federal court action tried by defendants but has been unable to collect any portion of the judgment, claims that defendants committed malpractice by taking the position in the federal court action that the individual defendant therein, a state employee, acted intentionally rather than recklessly or with gross negligence. According to plaintiff, had the jury found that the individual defendant acted recklessly or with gross negligence rather than intentionally, the State would have been required to indemnify her under Public Officers Law § 17. However, defendants, who were retained on the eve of trial 10 years after the federal court action was filed, could not have altered the position that plaintiff had consistently taken since the commencement of the action concerning the individual defendant’s state of mind. In other respects, plaintiffs proposed amended complaint does not cure the infirmities in the original complaint. In view of the foregoing, and as plaintiff is represented by an attorney on the appeal, plaintiff’s request for a stay is moot. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Saxe, Friedman and Williams, JJ.