Anderson v Beranbaum

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Anderson v Beranbaum 2013 NY Slip Op 31821(U) August 5, 2013 Sup Ct, New York County Docket Number: 151918/2013 Judge: Anil C. Singh Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. Ilr--------------------. [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/06/2013 1] INDEX NO. 151918/2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 22 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/06/2013 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. AN1L C. SINGH SUPRF.ME COURT JUSIlCE PART_b_l_ Justice ( 'Index Number: 151918/2013 ANDERSON, CHRISTINE C. INDEX NO. _ _ _ __ MOTION DATE _ _ __ vs BERANBAUM, JOHN A. I \. MOTION SEQ. NO. _ __ Sequence Number: 001 DISMISS ACTION __ J The following papers, numbered 1 to _ _ , were read on this motion to/for Notice of Motion/Order to Show Cause - Affidavits - Exhibits Answering Affidavits - -----------------------I No(s)., _ _ _ _ __ Exhibits ___________________________ Replying Affidavits ______________________________ I No(s). ________ I No(s). __________ Upon the foregoing papers, It is ordered that this motion is .'" Iw 'u DECIDED IN ACCORDANCE WfTHORDER ACCOMPANYING DECISION I ~ en ,., :;) II~ '0 W ct: ct: w 'u.. ~ ;.:. ..J ..J Z u.. en 0. I, ct: >- (/) :;) 0 t; w ct w I en (!) w z ct: en 3: _ 0 Iw :I o ~ o I- en 0 I,~ u.. - :r:: Z w I,:!: ct: 0 u.. Dated: ~ C <:." -A~'L6./~1':--I-l-I--='}-- 1. CHECK ONE: ..................................................................... ~ASE DISPOSED 2. CHECK AS APPROPRIATE: ........................... MOTION IS: D GRANTED DDO NOT POST D D DENIED 3. CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: ................................................ D SETTLE ORDER ¢J.S.C. HON:ANILc.SINGli--SUPREME COURT WnICP, NON-FINAL DISPOSITION D GRANTED IN PART D OTHER D SUBMIT ORDER D FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT D REFERENCE [* 2] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: PART 61 -----------------------------------------------------------------)( CHRISTINE C. ANDERSON, Plaintiff, -against- DECISION AND ORDER Index No. 151918113 JOHN A. BERANBAUM and BERANBAUM MENKEN LLP, Defendants. -----------------------------------------------------------------)( HON. ANIL C. SINGH, J.: Defendants John A. Beranbaum and Beranbaum Menken LLP (collectively "Bemanbaum") move pursuant CPLR 3211(a)(1), (5) and (7) to dismiss plaintiff Christine Anderson's legal malpractice action. In her verified complaint filed March 3, 2013, Anderson alleges eight separate causes of action including: Breach of Contract, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Negligence, Gross Negligence, Fraud, Malpractice, Breach of Duties of Loyalty and Good Faith, and Breach of Duty of Confidentiality. However, upon the facts alleged in the verified compliant, the court finds that the plaintiff has only alleged two instances of legal malpractice. The additional causes of action are duplicative of the legal malpractice claims, as they allege the same set of operative facts. The additional causes of action are therefore dismissed pursuant to well-established Page 1 of 4 [* 3] precedent that duplicative claims of legal malpractice should be dismissed (see ~, Ulico Cas. Co. v. Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, 56 A.D.3d 1, 8-9 (1st Dept 2008); Proskauer Rose, LLP v. ASIA Electronics Holding Co., 2 A.D.3d 196 (1 st Dept 2003); InKine Pharmaceutical Company, Inc. v. Coleman, 305 A.D.2d 151 (1 st Dept 2003); Sonnenschine v. Giacomo, 295 A.D.2d 287 (1 st Dept 2002)). The first alleged incident oflegal malpractice is based upon Beranbaum's representation of Anderson in an employment discrimination action filed against the State of New York in the Southern District (see Christine C. Anderson v. The State of New York et aI., Case No. 07-9599). Anderson alleges that Beranbaum engaged in legal malpractice during the course of prosecuting the case, ultimately leading to an adverse result. Anderson appealed the result pro se on November ii, 25, 2009, in an appeal that was ultimately rejected. Both parties deny that Anderson was offered or received any legal services from Beranbaum following Anderson's decision to appeal on November 25,2009. The second alleged incident of legal malpractice is based upon an email that Anderson's daughter received on March 4, 2010, from a "stranger" containing "attorney-client privileged information," including confidential medical information and details about her Southern District lawsuit. Anderson claims that she was "devastated" upon learning of the alleged breach of confidentiality, and seeks compensatory and punitive damages for this injury. Page 2 of 4 [* 4] The legal standard of review for a pre-answer motion to dismiss is to accord the verified complaint every possible favorable inference in order to determine whether the complaint fits within a cognizable legal theory (Amav Indus. v. Brown, Raysman, Millstein, Felder & Steiner, LLP, 96 N.Y.2d 300, 303-04 (2001)). A pre-answer motion to dismiss may be granted only when "documentary evidence submitted conclusively establishes a defense to the asserted claims as a matter of law" (Id.). In the instant case, the pre-answer motion to dismiss provides such evidence. The documentary evidence provided by the defendant conclusively shows that the first claim for malpractice falls outside the applicable statute of limitations. Under CPLR 214(6), all claims for legal malpractice, no matter whether they sound in tort or contract, have a three year statute of limitations. Case law further provides that the statute of limitations begins to toll upon the date that all elements of a legal malpractice have been fulfilled such that the injured party could have brought suit, regardless of whether the injured party was aware of the injury at the time (lDT Corp. v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., 12 N.Y.3d 132, 140 (2009)). Granting the plaintiff every possible favorable inference, the -latest date that the first legal malpractice cause of action would begin to toll would be November 25,2009, when Anderson dispensed with Beranbaum's services in order to prosecute her case pro se. Assuming all of Anderson's allegations,are true, then Page 3 of 4 [* 5] the latest Anderson could have chosen to commence a lawsuit would have been on November 25,2012, alleging that Beranbaum's malpractice caused an adverse result in her lawsuit and resulted in the costs of her appeal. However, rather than file the legal malpractice claim on or before November 25,2012, Anderson instead chose to commence her lawsuit on March 3, 2013. This date falls well outside CPRL 214(6)'s statute oflimitations of three years for legal malpractice, and is therefore time-barred as a matter of law. The second incident oflegal malpractice is based on Beranbaum's alleged breach of confidentiality, which the plaintiff claims "devastated" her. Here, the plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The only injuries that Anderson alleges from the legal malpractice are emotional, which are not considered compensable for legal malpractice claims (see I>ombrowski v. Bulson, 19 N.Y.3d 347, 351 (2012); Wolkstein v. Morgenstern 275 A.I>.2d 635, 637 (1st I>ept 2000); I>irito v. Stanley, 203 A.I>.2d 903 (4th I>ept 1994)). It is therefore ORDEREI> that the defendant's motion to dismiss is granted. The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of the court. I>ate: A..d'- L ~J , '\~ l , , "'Anil C. iRgIr-' New York, New York HON. ANIL C. SINGH SUPREME COURT IDS-'-' ' 1CP,Offt, Page 4 of 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.