Reinforcing Causation and Expert Proof in Legal Malpractice: Scott v. Schwartz (2025)

Introduction

Scott v. Schwartz (2025 NYSlipOp 01849) is a Third Department Appellate Division decision addressing pivotal questions in legal malpractice law. The underlying dispute arose from the failure of two law firms—Schwartz Law Firm (SLF) and Rehfuss Law Firm (RLF)—to timely file and serve a complaint against the County of Albany on behalf of their client, the executor of an estate. The plaintiff alleged that this failure constituted legal malpractice. Key issues included (1) whether the plaintiff could prove he would have succeeded in the underlying nursing‐home negligence action but for his attorneys’ alleged negligence, (2) the admissibility of expert proof on causation, and (3) the applicability of CPLR 3012-a’s certificate of merit requirement.

Parties:

• Plaintiff/Appellant: John Scott, individually and as executor of the Estate of Bernice Scott.
• Defendants/Respondents: Charles R. Schwartz & Schwartz Law Firm (SLF); Stephen J. Rehfuss & Rehfuss Law Firm, PC (RLF).

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court (Platkin, J.) granted summary judgment in favor of SLF and partially granted judgment in favor of RLF, dismissing legal malpractice claims. The Appellate Division affirmed. It held that:

1. SLF met its initial summary judgment burden by presenting an admissible expert affidavit demonstrating there was no deviation from the standard of care in the underlying nursing-home action.
2. The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact because his expert report was unsworn and inadmissible.
3. RLF likewise was entitled to judgment dismissing malpractice claims, as the plaintiff offered no admissible proof that the underlying action would have succeeded.
4. The plaintiff’s argument regarding CPLR 3012-a’s certificate of merit requirement was unpreserved and, in any event, without merit because the underlying claim involved medical malpractice.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The court relied on established New York authorities on legal malpractice:

• Rudolf v. Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer (8 NY3d 438, 442 [2007]): Plaintiff must show attorney negligence, causation, and but-for success in the underlying claim.
• Bachman-Richards v. Pomeroy (220 AD3d 1136 [3d Dept 2023]): Clarifies the burden-shifting framework on summary judgment in malpractice suits.
• Buczek v. Dell & Little, LLP (127 AD3d 1121 [2d Dept 2015]): Requires admissible expert proof to raise triable issues on causation.
• Humbert v. Allen (89 AD3d 804 [2d Dept 2011]) and Sand v. City of New York (83 AD3d 923 [2d Dept 2011]): Support court’s authority to “search the record” for undisputed proof.
• Dunbar v. Women & Children’s Hosp. of Buffalo (217 AD3d 1373 [4th Dept 2023]): Explains certificate of merit requirements when medical issues are central.

Legal Reasoning

The Appellate Division applied the summary judgment standard that all inferences favor the non-moving party but requires dismissal if no triable issue exists. SLF’s expert, Dr. Sharon Brangman, detailed decedent’s multiple comorbidities and concluded there was no medical deviation by the nursing home. This expert affidavit was admissible and sufficient to negate causation. The plaintiff’s lone contrary expert report lacked an affidavit and thus was not competent evidence. Once SLF met its burden, the plaintiff had to come forward with admissible proof; he did not, so SLF prevailed.

For RLF, the plaintiff similarly failed to produce admissible expert proof that the underlying claim would have been meritorious but for the delay. The court additionally noted that plaintiff’s newly raised certificate of merit argument under CPLR 3012-a was not preserved and, on the merits, the claim was one for medical malpractice, triggering the certificate of merit rule.

Impact

Scott v. Schwartz reinforces two important principles in New York legal malpractice law:

1. Strict Causation Requirement: A plaintiff must show not only attorney negligence but also that the malpractice caused the loss of a meritorious claim. Without admissible expert proof on the underlying merits, summary judgment is proper.
2. Admissibility of Expert Evidence: Unsworn expert reports or reports not accompanied by affidavits are insufficient to raise triable issues. Attorneys defending malpractice suits should secure and proffer admissible expert affidavits early.

The decision underscores the importance of retaining and presenting properly sworn medical experts both in malpractice defense and prosecution.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Legal Malpractice Elements: To prove legal malpractice in New York: (1) attorney’s breach of standard of care, (2) causation (the breach must have caused the loss), and (3) damages (the plaintiff would have won the underlying case).
• Summary Judgment Burden-Shifting: Defendant-attorney first shows the plaintiff cannot succeed on at least one element (e.g., causation). Then the burden shifts to the plaintiff to produce admissible evidence raising triable issues.
• CPLR 3012-a Certificate of Merit: In medical malpractice actions, the plaintiff must file with the complaint a certificate from a qualified expert, attesting that the plaintiff has a reasonable basis for the claim. This rule prevents frivolous suits and ensures expert vetting.

Conclusion

Scott v. Schwartz affirms that in New York legal malpractice actions, defendants can secure summary judgment by presenting admissible expert proof negating causation and the underlying claim’s viability. Plaintiffs must counter with properly sworn expert affidavits to raise triable issues. The decision also upholds the certificate of merit requirement when medical issues predominate. Together, these principles will guide future malpractice litigation, emphasizing rigorous expert proof and careful procedural compliance.