This is a legal malpractice action in which the plaintiff, Juraj Skvara is seeking a summary judgment for his malpractice cause of action claim against his former attorney, the defendant Philip Kamaras. A New York Family Lawyer said the plaintiff is seeking a money judgment in the amount of $1,000,000. The defendant has issued a cross motion for an order dismissing the complaint made against him. This is based on the grounds that the plaintiff’s action was not properly commenced and fails to state a valid cause of action for legal malpractice.
The plaintiff, Skvara, retained the defendant Kamaras on the 23rd of February, 2006 to handle a matrimonial and family court proceeding against his ex – wife, Andrea Skvara after the divorce judgment was vacated in a New York divorce court. The defendant provided the plaintiff with a written retainer agreement and a client’s bill of rights before taking on the case.
The plaintiff commenced a divorce action in New York on the second of September, 2005. Before the defendant obtained representation he proceeded in the matrimonial action. A New York Divorce judgment was granted on default on the 19th of December, 2005.
A New York Custody Lawyer said that in the petition for divorce the plaintiff stated that there were no other actions for divorce that had been previously filed. However, in January of 2006 his ex – wife moved to vacate the New York judgment on the ground that she had previously commenced an action for divorce in the state of Florida in April of 2005. This motion by the ex-wife was granted and the divorce from the New York court was vacated. It was at this time that the plaintiff retained the defendant as counsel.
The plaintiff discussed his legal options with Kamaras. The defendant states that during his first meeting with the plaintiff he was told that the Florida court had erroneously vacated the New York Divorce judgment because his ex wife did not satisfy the residency requirements in the state of Florida before filing for divorce. Kamaras advised the plaintiff that in order to reopen the divorce action in New York he would need to confirm that Ms. Skvara did not live in Florida at the time she began her action for divorce.
Kamaras alleges that he researched the issue and reviewed the documents of evidence. He came to the conclusion that the divorce action made by Ms. Skvara preceded the action in New York made by the plaintiff. A Bronx Family Lawyer said he further states that he could find no evidence showing that she had not met the residency requirements of Florida.
Case Discussion and Decision
The plaintiff started this malpractice suit against the defendant and submits a one page affidavit alleging that the defendant failed to obtain an extension of time to perfect his case against his ex-wife, did not attend the CAMP conference, and failed to move to reargue the appeal in the case.
The motion made by the plaintiff must be denied as a motion for summary judgment in place of a complaint is not appropriate in a matter such as this. A Bronx Custody Lawyer said the plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action and is only seeking a payment in the excess amount of 1,000,000. The cross motion made by the defendant to dismiss the complaint is granted.
If you need any type of legal advice regarding any matter, contact Stephen Bilkis & Associates. Our offices are located in New York City. We have expert lawyers on staff that are ready to discuss your legal matter with you. We provide our clients with a free consultation during their first visit to our offices. Contact us today to set up an appointment .