Request a Demo Log In
Red Zone LLC v. Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, 27 N.Y.3d 1048, 34 N.Y.S.3d 397, 54 N.E.3d 69 (2016), Court Opinion
X1UN5LKL0000N?jcsearch=2016+BL+174808
OPINIONS
Red Zone LLC v. Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP
2016 BL 174808
2016 NY Slip Op 04249
2016 wl 3080303
27 N.Y.3d 1048
34 N.Y.S.3d 397
5
54 N.E.3d 69

Search

Search over:

No Matches Found

Search term(s) not found.

Docket Entries Since Last Update
NOTE: This court's RSS feed does not list MOTION entries, so Bloomberg Law cannot detect them and thus they will not be listed here. However, motions will be included if you update the docket.

Copy with Citation

Copy the text below to paste into your document.

Link citations to Bloomberg Law
Court Opinions
PrimaryStateReporter,SecondaryStateReporter,RegionalReporter,
27 N.Y.3d 1048
34 N.Y.S.3d 397
54 N.E.3d 69
5
2016 NY Slip Op 04249
2016 BL 174808
Pagination
*N.Y.3d
**N.Y.S.3d
***N.E.3d


Majority Opinion >


COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK


Red Zone LLC, Respondent, v Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, Appellant.


No. 5

April 27, 2016, Argued

June 2, 2016, Decided

Appeal, by permission of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, entered June 19, 2014. The Appellate Division affirmed an amended order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, New York County (Melvin L. Schweitzer, J.), which had awarded plaintiff $17.2 million.

Attorney and Client — Malpractice — Summary — Judgment — Attorney Affidavit

1. Material triable questions of fact existed in plaintiff's legal malpractice action regarding whether defendant failed to exercise the ordinary reason able skill and knowledge commonly possessed by members of the legal profession. While a party may not create a feigned issue of fact to defeat summary judgment, the affidavit of the attorney who represented plaintiff did not flatly contradict his prior deposition testimony. Therefore, the affidavit should have been considered in opposition to plaintiff's motion.

Limitation of Actions — Tolling — Continuous Relationship Doctrine

2. Plaintiff did not meet its burden in its legal malpractice action of demonstrating that defendant's statute of limitations defense failed as a matter of law. Triable questions of fact existed regarding whether the statute of limitations was tolled by the continuous representation doctrine in light of the significant gap of time between the alleged malpractice and the later communications between the parties, the changed nature of the alleged legal representation of plaintiff by defendant, the absence of any clear delineation of the period of such representation and defendant's submission of affidavits disclaiming any mutual understanding of legal representation after defendant drafted the agreement.

Order modified, with costs, by denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and reinstating defendant's affirmative defenses of statute of limitations and comparative negligence and, as so modified, affirmed, in a memorandum.


Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, New York City (David R. Marriott of counsel), for appellant.

Jeffrey A. Jannuzzo, New York City, and Hinman Straub PC, Albany (James T. Potter of counsel), for respondent.



Judges Pigott, Rivera, Abdus-Salaam, Stein and Garcia concur. Chief Judge DiFiore and Judge Fahey took no part.

[*1049] [**398] [***70] Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be modified, with costs, by denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and reinstating defendant's affirmative defenses of the statute of limitations and comparative negligence and, as so modified, affirmed.

[1] Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to defendant as the non-movant (see generally Vega v Restani Constr. Corp., 18 NY3d 499 , 503 , 965 NE2d 240 , 942 NYS2d 13 [2012]; Ortiz v Varsity Holdings, LLC, 18 NY3d 335 , 339, 960 NE2d 948 , 937 NYS2d 157 [2011]), material triable questions of fact exist regarding whether defendant failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by members of the legal profession (see Dombrowski v Bulson, 19 NY3d 347 , 350, 971 NE2d 338 , 948 NYS2d 208 [2012]). While a party may not create a feigned issue of fact to defeat summary judgment (see S.J. Capelin Assoc. v Globe Mfg. Corp., 34 NY2d 338 , 341, 313 NE2d 776 , 357 NYS2d 478 [1974]), contrary to plaintiff's assertion here, the affidavit of the attorney who represented plaintiff did not flatly contradict his prior deposition testimony. Therefore, the affidavit should have been considered in opposition to plaintiff's motion.

[2] Similarly, plaintiff did not meet its burden of demonstrating that defendant's statute of limitations defense fails as a[*1050] matter of law. Specifically, triable questions of fact exist regarding whether the statute of limitations was tolled by the continuous representation doctrine in light of: the significant gap in time between the alleged malpractice and the later communications between the parties; the changed nature of the alleged legal representation of plaintiff by defendant; the absence of any clear delineation of the period of such representation; and defendant's submission of affidavits disclaiming any mutual understanding of legal representation after 2005 (see generally Grace v Law, 24 NY3d 203 , 212, 997 NYS2d 334 , 21 NE3d 995 [2014]).

Judges Pigott, Rivera, Abdus-Salaam, Stein and Garcia concur; Chief Judge DiFiore and Judge Fahey taking no part.

Order modified, with costs, by denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and reinstating defendant's affirmative defenses[**399] [***71] of statute of limitations and comparative negligence and, as so modified, affirmed, in a memorandum.

Jump To
Please enter a valid page number
Pagination
Show Pagination
 

back to top

Enter a Client Matter

Your firm optionally allows a client matter to be selected while you are using Bloomberg Law. Please contact your administrator if you have any questions. Please select from a recently used Client Matter or enter a Client Matter manually.
RECENTLY USED
CLIENT MATTER
Please contact your administrator if you have questions about client matter.
Cancel Submit
Unrecognized Client Matter

Client Matter   does not currently exist in Bloomberg Law. Would you like to add this client matter to the system?
Bloomberg Industry Group
About Us Contact Us
Other Products
Tax Big Law Business Professional Learning BNA
Help Topics
Getting Started BCite Citator Smart Code Points of Law Browse All Help Topics
24/7 BLAW® Help Desk
888.560.2529
help@bloomberglaw.com
0.1064.1
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Copyright Accessibility
© 2021 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved.