Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

Fraud, Fiduciary Duty, Negligent Misrepresentation, and Contract Claims Duplicative of Legal Malpractice Claim—Arising from Same Facts and Seeking Same Damages—Are Barred under New York Law

Case 1: Amusement Indus., Inc. v. Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, P.C., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8569 (S.D.N.Y. Jan 22, 2013) (R&R):

[T]here is a "longstanding body of New York case law that bars other claims for relief relying on the same facts and seeking the same relief as [a legal] malpractice claim." Amusement Indus., Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50527, 2012 WL 1193353, at *6. Causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, or negligent misrepresentation that are premised upon the same facts and that allege the same damages as a legal mal-practice claim must be dismissed as duplicative. See, e.g., Lusk v. Weinstein, 85 A.D.3d 445, 445, 924 N.Y.S.2d 91 (1st Dep't) (breach of fiduciary duty claim duplicative of legal malpractice claim), lv. denied, 17 N.Y.3d 709, 954 N.E.2d 1180, 930 N.Y.S.2d 554 (2011); Conklin v. Owen, 72 A.D.3d 1006, 1007, 900 N.Y.S.2d 118 (2d Dep't 2010) (negligent misrepresentation claim duplicative of legal malpractice); Murray Hill Invs., Inc. v. Parker Chapin Flattau & Klimpl, LLP, 305 A.D.2d 228, 229, 759 N.Y.S.2d 463 (1st Dep't 2003) (fraud and breach of fiduciary duty claims duplicative of legal malpractice). Thus, we dismiss such claims where they "are premised on the same facts [as a mal-practice claim] and seek the same relief." Amusement Indus., Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50527, 2012 WL 1193353, at *7.

Case 2: Soni v. Pryor, 2013 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 321 (2d Dept. Jan. 23, 2013):

[T]he defendants were entitled to dismissal of the cause of action alleging breach of contract, albeit on a ground different from that articulated by the Supreme Court (see CPLR 3211[a][7]). The cause of action alleging breach of contract was duplicative of the cause of action alleging legal malpractice, since it arose from the same facts and did not seek distinct and different damages (see Ofman v Katz, 89 AD3d 909, 911, 933 N.Y.S.2d 101; Alizio v Feldman, 82 AD3d 804, 805, 918 N.Y.S.2d 218; Mahler v Campagna, 60 AD3d at 1012).

Share this article:


Recent Posts