- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Borges v. Placeres
Factual and Procedural Background
This opinion concerns an appeal from an order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, First Department, which affirmed a judgment entered by the Civil Court, New York County, following a jury trial in favor of the plaintiff, José Borges. The case involves a legal malpractice claim against defendant Alfred Placeres. The defendant sought to amend his answer to assert a statute of limitations defense and moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the eve of trial, eight years after the original answer was served. These motions were denied. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant's legal malpractice caused a deportation order and failure to vacate it, resulting in harm including 14 months of detention.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the defendant's motions to amend his answer to assert a statute of limitations defense and for summary judgment were properly denied due to delay without excuse.
- Whether the charge and verdict sheet correctly required that the defendant's negligence be a substantial factor in causing plaintiff's harm in this legal malpractice action.
- Whether damages awarded for harm related to plaintiff's detention were recoverable in a legal malpractice action.
Arguments of the Parties
Defendant's Arguments
- The defendant moved to amend his answer to assert a statute of limitations defense and for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, but these motions were made late, on the eve of trial, eight years after the answer was served.
- The defendant contended that the damages awarded for the harm resulting from plaintiff's 14 months in detention constituted non-pecuniary damages, which are not recoverable in a legal malpractice action.
- The defendant argued that the gravamen of the plaintiff's claim was that his departures caused the plaintiff to be denied an adjusted immigration status, effectively losing the case.
Plaintiff's Arguments
- The plaintiff maintained that the defendant's departures resulted in a deportation order and the failure to vacate it due to bad advice, thus constituting actionable legal malpractice.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Van Damme v. Gelber, 111 A.D.3d 408, 974 N.Y.S.2d 375 (1st Dept. 2013), leave denied 23 N.Y.3d 904 (2014) | Denial of late motions to amend answer and for summary judgment absent excuse for delay. | The court relied on this precedent to uphold denial of defendant's late motions made eight years after the answer was served. |
| Kershaw v. Hospital for Special Surgery, 114 A.D.3d 75, 978 N.Y.S.2d 13 (1st Dept. 2013) | Exception permitting courts to entertain untimely summary judgment motions when opposing party has a timely motion returnable the same day. | The court found defendant's summary judgment motion did not fall within this exception because it did not seek relief against a party with a timely motion returnable the same day. |
| Genger v. Genger, 120 A.D.3d 1102, 993 N.Y.S.2d 297 (1st Dept. 2014) | Same principle as in Kershaw regarding untimely summary judgment motions. | The court applied this precedent to reinforce the denial of defendant's untimely summary judgment motion. |
| Barnett v. Schwartz, 47 A.D.3d 197, 848 N.Y.S.2d 663 (2d Dept. 2007) | Requirement that negligence be a substantial factor in causing harm in legal malpractice actions. | The court affirmed that the charge and verdict sheet correctly required a substantial factor causation standard in the malpractice claim. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court analyzed the defendant's late motions to amend and for summary judgment and found no excuse for the eight-year delay, citing established precedent that disfavors such untimely motions. The court further explained that the defendant's summary judgment motion did not qualify for an exception allowing consideration of untimely motions because it did not seek relief against a party with a timely motion returnable the same day. Regarding the merits, the court emphasized that the proper legal standard in a legal malpractice case requires that the defendant's negligence be a substantial factor in causing plaintiff's harm, which was correctly reflected in the jury instructions. The court rejected the defendant's characterization of the plaintiff's claim as merely a lost opportunity for adjusted immigration status, clarifying that the claim centered on the deportation order and failure to vacate it due to bad legal advice. The defendant's argument that damages for detention were non-pecuniary and thus unrecoverable was deemed unpreserved and not considered. The court considered and rejected other contentions raised by the defendant.
Holding and Implications
The court affirmed the order of the Appellate Term affirming the judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff after a jury trial. The defendant's motions to amend and for summary judgment were properly denied. The jury instructions and verdict sheet were proper in requiring substantial factor causation. The defendant's arguments regarding damages were not preserved for appellate review. The decision directly upholds the plaintiff's legal malpractice verdict and does not establish new precedent beyond applying existing standards to the facts of this case.
TOM
Affirmed.
Law Office of José Luis Torres, White Plains (José Luis Torres of counsel), for appellant. Law Office of Paul O'Dwyer, P.C., New York (Paul O'Dwyer of counsel), for respondent.
Order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, First Department, entered on or about March 5, 2014, which affirmed a judgment, Civil Court, New York County (Frank P. Nervo, J.), entered September 14, 2012, after a jury trial, in plaintiff's favor, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Defendant's motions to amend his answer to assert a statute of limitations defense and for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, made on the eve of trial eight years after the answer was served, were properly denied for lack of any excuse for the delay ( see Van Damme v. Gelber, 111 A.D.3d 408, 409–410, 974 N.Y.S.2d 375 [1st Dept.2013], lv. denied 23 N.Y.3d 904, 2014 WL 2522237 [2014] ). The motion for summary judgment did not seek relief against a party whose timely motion for summary judgment was returnable the same day, and therefore did not fall within the exception permitting a court to entertain an untimely summary judgment motion ( see Kershaw v. Hospital for Special Surgery, 114 A.D.3d 75, 87–89, 978 N.Y.S.2d 13 [1st Dept.2013]; Genger v. Genger, 120 A.D.3d 1102, 993 N.Y.S.2d 297 [1st Dept.2014] ).
The charge and verdict sheet appropriately required that defendant's negligence in this attorney malpractice action be a substantial factor in causing plaintiff's harm ( see Barnett v. Schwartz, 47 A.D.3d 197, 204–205, 848 N.Y.S.2d 663 [2d Dept.2007] ). Contrary to defendant's contention, the gravamen of plaintiff's claim is not that defendant's departures caused plaintiff to be denied an adjusted immigration status, tantamount to losing a case, but that those departures resulted in a deportation order and the failure to vacate it due to bad advice. Defendant's argument that the damages awarded for the harm resulting from plaintiff's 14 months in detention constitute non-pecuniary damages that are not recoverable in a legal malpractice action is unpreserved.
We have considered defendant's other contentions and find them unavailing.
Alert