In this season, gifts are being shuttled around, and many look to receive. Board of Mgrs. of Brightwater Towers Condominium v SNS Org., Ltd.   2017 NY Slip Op 31791(U)   August 24, 2017   Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: 503102/16   Judge: Lawrence S. Knipel is an example what happens when one asks correctly for a second chance.  Rather than an Oliver Twist outcome, the Court granted leave to replead.

“The plaintiff Board of Managers of Brightwater Towers Condominium (the plaintiff) moves for an order ( 1) pursuant to CPLR 2221 ( d), for leave to reargue the branch of the motion (the prior motion) of the defendants New York Engineering Associates, P.C., and Neal M. Rudikoff, P.E. (the defendants), which was for an order, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), dismissing the plaintiffs original complaint as against them for failure to state a claim, and (2) pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b ), granting it leave to serve its first amended verified complaint. By decision, order, and judgment, dated Feb. 17, 2017 (the prior order), the Court granted the defendants’ prior motion to the extent of dismissing the plaintiffs original complaint as against them for failure to state a claim. The plaintiffs original complaint, dated Mar. 3, 2016, asserted, as against the defendants, a single cause of action for professional malpractice (see Original Complaint, iii! 76-89 [Second Cause of Action]). The original complaint, as more fully set forth in the margin, 1 did not allege that “the underlying relationship between the parties [was] one of privity of contract, or that the bond between them [was] so close as to be the functional equivalent of privity” (Perfetto v CEA Engineers, P.C., 114 AD3d 835, 836 [2d Dept 2014]). In its opposition to the defendants’ prior motion, the plaintiff, by counsel, raised the theory of privity but did not, at that time, move for leave to amend its original complaint to plead that theory…”

“The prior order, insofar as it addressed the plaintiffs claims against the defendants as pleaded in the original complaint, was correct, albeit with one caveat. It should have granted the plaintiff leave to replead. Accordingly, leave to reargue is granted and, upon reargument, the prior order is adhered to, subject to granting the plaintiff leave to rep lead as more fully set forth in the decretal paragraphs below. The remaining branch of the plaintiffs motion which is for leave to serve its first amended complaint is decided as set forth in the decretal paragraphs below. “

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Andrew Lavoott Bluestone

Andrew Lavoott Bluestone has been an attorney for 40 years, with a career that spans criminal prosecution, civil litigation and appellate litigation. Mr. Bluestone became an Assistant District Attorney in Kings County in 1978, entered private practice in 1984 and in 1989 opened…

Andrew Lavoott Bluestone has been an attorney for 40 years, with a career that spans criminal prosecution, civil litigation and appellate litigation. Mr. Bluestone became an Assistant District Attorney in Kings County in 1978, entered private practice in 1984 and in 1989 opened his private law office and took his first legal malpractice case.

Since 1989, Bluestone has become a leader in the New York Plaintiff’s Legal Malpractice bar, handling a wide array of plaintiff’s legal malpractice cases arising from catastrophic personal injury, contracts, patents, commercial litigation, securities, matrimonial and custody issues, medical malpractice, insurance, product liability, real estate, landlord-tenant, foreclosures and has defended attorneys in a limited number of legal malpractice cases.

Bluestone also took an academic role in field, publishing the New York Attorney Malpractice Report from 2002-2004.  He started the “New York Attorney Malpractice Blog” in 2004, where he has published more than 4500 entries.

Mr. Bluestone has written 38 scholarly peer-reviewed articles concerning legal malpractice, many in the Outside Counsel column of the New York Law Journal. He has appeared as an Expert witness in multiple legal malpractice litigations.

Mr. Bluestone is an adjunct professor of law at St. John’s University College of Law, teaching Legal Malpractice.  Mr. Bluestone has argued legal malpractice cases in the Second Circuit, in the New York State Court of Appeals, each of the four New York Appellate Divisions, in all four of  the U.S. District Courts of New York and in Supreme Courts all over the state.  He has also been admitted pro haec vice in the states of Connecticut, New Jersey and Florida and was formally admitted to the US District Court of Connecticut and to its Bankruptcy Court all for legal malpractice matters. He has been retained by U.S. Trustees in legal malpractice cases from Bankruptcy Courts, and has represented municipalities, insurance companies, hedge funds, communications companies and international manufacturing firms. Mr. Bluestone regularly lectures in CLEs on legal malpractice.

Based upon his professional experience Bluestone was named a Diplomate and was Board Certified by the American Board of Professional Liability Attorneys in 2008 in Legal Malpractice. He remains Board Certified.  He was admitted to The Best Lawyers in America from 2012-2019.  He has been featured in Who’s Who in Law since 1993.

In the last years, Mr. Bluestone has been featured for two particularly noteworthy legal malpractice cases.  The first was a settlement of an $11.9 million dollar default legal malpractice case of Yeo v. Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman which was reported in the NYLJ on August 15, 2016. Most recently, Mr. Bluestone obtained a rare plaintiff’s verdict in a legal malpractice case on behalf of the City of White Plains v. Joseph Maria, reported in the NYLJ on February 14, 2017. It was the sole legal malpractice jury verdict in the State of New York for 2017.

Bluestone has been at the forefront of the development of legal malpractice principles and has contributed case law decisions, writing and lecturing which have been recognized by his peers.  He is regularly mentioned in academic writing, and his past cases are often cited in current legal malpractice decisions. He is recognized for his ample writings on Judiciary Law § 487, a 850 year old statute deriving from England which relates to attorney deceit.