New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

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

Download PDF

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:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

(1) Electronic Spoliation — Rule 37(e)(2) Dismissal Sanction — Temporal Proximity of Spoliation to Production Due Date = Circumstantial Evidence of Intent; (2) While Discovery Sanctions Are Reviewed For Abuse Of Discretion, Findings Of Fact Related To Discovery Sanctions Are Reviewed For Clear Error; (3) Dismissal under Rule 37(e)(2) Plus Attorney’s Fees under Inherent Power Appropriately Combined [But see 2015 Advisory Committee Note: “New Rule 37(e) … authorizes and specifies measures a court may employ if information that should have been preserved is lost, and specifies the findings necessary to justify these measures. forecloses reliance on inherent authority or state law to determine when certain measures should be used.”]; (4) Compensatory Sanctions under Goodyear v. Haeger Appropriately Include Fees and Costs Resulting from Attempts to Settle Spoliation Motion

(1) FRAP 38 Sanctions Inapt for Appeal That Is Weak — “Borderline Frivolous” — Test Is Whether Appellant Should Have Known the Appeal Had Absolutely No Chance of Success — (2) Lay Opinion Testimony under Rule 701: Nub of Helpfulness Requirement Is to Exclude Testimony When the Witness Is No Better Suited Than the Jury to Assess the Issue; (3) Appeals: No Appeal from Denial of Motion for Judgment As a Matter of Law Unless Appellant Made That Motion Before Case Was Submitted to Jury

(1) § 1927 and Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct After Obtaining Verdict: Filing Lis Pendens Based on False Statements and in Violation of Governing Law, Filing Fraudulent Abstracts of Judgment That Represented They Had Been Court-Issued; (2) Rule 37 Sanctions for Baseless Motion to Compel Required Unless Target Shows That the Motion Was Substantially Justified Or Other Circumstances Make An Award Of Expenses Unjust

Rule 37 Dismissal Factors (10th Circuit) — Rule 37(d) Sanctions Apply Without Regard to Whether the Court Has Ordered the Delinquent Party to Appear for His, Her or Their Deposition

Rule 37 Dismissal Factors (Sixth Circuit) — Refusal to Answer Deposition Questions on Relevancy Grounds Is Not Valid Rule 30(c)(2) — Pro Se Deponent’s Attendance At Zoom Deposition While Driving A Semi, Refusing to Answer Questions, Inter Alia, Held Contumacious

Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures and Rule 37 Preclusion: Rule 26 Does Not Require Disclosure of Legal Theories Underlying Damages Computations Provided Pursuant to 26(a)(1)(A)(i)

Rule 37 Sanctions: (1) Forfeiture of Objections to Produce Specific Categories of Documents (Including Tax Returns, Social Media Passwords) as Sanction for Violation of Discovery Order — (2) Default Judgment for Multiple Violations of Discovery Orders — (3) Ninth Circuit’s 5-Factor Test for Dismissal or Default Sanction — (4) Three Additional Factors Considered by Court of Appeals in Assessing Whether Lesser Sanctions Were Adequately Considered — (5) District Court Need Not Recite Each Factor: It Suffices If Record Permits Appellate Court to Apply Them — (6) Public Policy Favoring Disposition of Cases on the Merits Is Not Dispositive Where At Least 4 Factors “Support,” Or 3 Factors “Strongly Support,” Dismissal/Default — (7) And Lends Little Support to A Party Whose Conduct Impedes Adjudication on the Merits — (7) Order to Show Cause Why FRAP 38, § 1927 and Inherent Power Sanctions Should Not Issue for Multiple Misstatements Of Counsel At Oral Argument

Electronic Spoliation Sanctions: “Intent to Deprive” in Rule 37(e)(2) Means Willful Destruction of Evidence to Avoid Its Discovery by an Adverse Party — Relevant Circumstantial Evidence in Determining “Intent to Deprive” — Rule 37(e)(2)(C)’s Standards Trump Circuit’s Multi-Factor Test for Determining Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate — No Prejudice Required for 37(e)(2) Sanctions Because Intent to Deprive Creates Inference the Loss of Information Favored the Spoliator

Sanctions and Appealability — Fifth Circuit’s 2023 Survey of Circuit Cases Concerning Whether Judgment of Dismissal As a Sanction Bars Review of Earlier Sanctions Orders Due to Lack of Jurisdiction or Whether The Decision to Review Pre-Dismissal Sanctions Orders Is Prudential

Sanctions and Appealability — Prior Sanctions Orders Do Not Merge into Judgment of Dismissal Imposed As Sanction under Rules 16(f), 37(b) and 41(b) and Are Unappealable — Courts of Appeal Differ As to Whether This Lack of Reviewability Is Jurisdictional or Discretionary (Jurisdictional in Second Circuit)

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice