The lawsuit against the defendant law firm, Kaufman Borgeest & Ryan, LLP. (“KBR”), and their partner, Jonathan D. Rubin, Esq. (“Rubin”), was filed by the plaintiffs, Harry Dorvilier and Harry’s Nurses Registry, Inc. (“HNR”), alleging legal malpractice, negligence, and breach of contract. This stems from a previous lawsuit where HNR was sued for the wrongful death of an infant allegedly caused by a nurse they had referred. The lawyers’ main intention was to settle the case and get the money. Lawyers forced HNR and Harry Dorvilier to settle the case (see documents).
Law office of Shaevitz & Shaevitz
Supreme Court of the state of New York
The critical issue was whether the nurse was an independent contractor or an agent of HNR, the latter of which would make HNR liable for the nurse’s actions (Decided by Judge Milton A. Tingling). HNR had strong evidence suggesting the nurse was an independent contractor, thus freeing them of liability (Under Medicaid regulation). It was their express wish to proceed to trial, arguing that a settlement would be inappropriate given their evidence and the potential increase in their liability insurance premiums.
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants committed legal malpractice by mishandling the defense in the wrongful death lawsuit. In particular, the attorney defendants are said to have pressured Mr. Dorvilier into agreeing to a substantial settlement forcefully, despite his and HNR’s desire to go to trial. The attorneys further allowed him to be placed in emotionally coercive situations, such as direct discussions with opposing counsel and the grieving family, which resulted in an agreement to settle under duress.
These actions by the defendants, in the plaintiffs’ view, constituted a breach of the duty of care owed by attorneys to their clients, making them guilty of negligence. Defendants’ purported failure to recognize and intervene in the coercive conversation between Mr. Dorvilier and opposing counsel, coupled with the emotional duress experienced by Mr. Dorvilier when speaking directly with the bereaved family, were characterized as negligent and malicious conduct. The plaintiffs argue that had the defendants adequately represented HNR’s interests, the company would not have been compelled to agree to an unjust settlement.
Further, the lawsuit alleges a breach of contract on the part of the attorneys, stating that they failed to perform their duties in accordance with the retainer agreement and did not litigate the matter in a manner any competent attorney would have. The defendants’ actions are claimed to have led to a detrimental settlement of $1,000,000, which in turn drastically increased HNR’s liability insurance premiums. As a result, the plaintiffs are seeking to be reimbursed for all attorney fees, sums paid to the defendants, and the subsequent increases in liability insurance premiums.
In conclusion, the plaintiffs’ claims center around allegations that the defendant’s attorneys coerced them into settling the wrongful death case despite strong evidence in their favor and against their express desire to go to trial. They argue that this amounted to legal malpractice, negligence, and breach of contract, which caused them substantial financial harm and emotional distress. They seek damages to compensate for these alleged harms, including punitive damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees.
STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION FOR ELECTRONIC FILING – Statement of Authorization for E-Filing
AFFIRMATION/AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE – Affidavit of Service of Complaint – Rubin
AFFIRMATION/AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE – Affidavit of Service of Complaint – Kaufman Borgeest
AFFIDAVIT OR AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
EXHIBIT(S) – A (Motion #001) – S&C
EXHIBIT(S) – B (Motion #001) – Mondesir underlying complaint
EXHIBIT(S) – C (Motion #001) – Mondesir, SJ order
EXHIBIT(S) – D (Motion #001) – Mondesir, transcript
EXHIBIT(S) – E (Motion #001) – Harry Dorvilier consent to settle
EXHIBIT(S) – F (Motion #001) – Gayle v. Harry’s Nursery Registry case
RJI -RE: NOTICE OF MOTION (Motion #001) –
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION (Motion #001)- MOL in Opposition
AFFIDAVIT OR AFFIRMATION IN REPLY (Motion #001)
DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION (Motion #001)
NOTICE OF ENTRY (Motion #001)
Judge Name: Peter J O’Donoghue
Attorney’s Name: Hannium, Feretic, Prendergast & Merlino, LLC
Attorney’s Name: Maryellen David, Esq.
Attorney’s Name: Daniel J. Wityk, Dimitri Kotzamanis, Esq. Shaevitz, Shaevitz & Kotzamanis