Weissman v Kessler
2010 NY Slip Op 08009 [78 AD3d 465]
November 9, 2010
Appellate Division, First Department
As corrected through Wednesday, January 19, 2011


Debra Weissman, Appellant,
v
Ellyn D. Kessler, Esq., et al.,Respondents, et al., Defendants.

[*1]Debra Weissman, appellant pro se.

Law Office of Ellyn D. Kessler, PLLC, New York (Ellyn D. Kessler of counsel), for Ellyn D.Kessler, Larry Hutcher, Esq. and Davidoff Malito & Hutcher LLP, respondents.

Collier, Halpern, Newberg, Nolletti & Bock, LLP, White Plains (Harry J. Nicolay, Jr. of counsel),for James J. Nolletti, Esq. and Collier, Halpern, Newberg, Nolletti & Bock, LLP, respondents.

Furman, Kornfeld & Brennan, LLP, New York (A. Michael Furman of counsel), for Harvey G.Landau, respondent.

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard F. Braun, J.), entered November 28, 2008,which, in an action alleging legal malpractice, granted the motion of defendant Harvey G. Landau, Esq.,to dismiss the complaint as against him; granted the motion of defendants Ellyn D. Kessler, Esq., LarryHutcher, Esq., and Davidoff Malito & Hutcher, LLP to dismiss the first and second causes of action asagainst them; granted the motion of defendants James J. Nolletti, Esq., and Collier, Halpern, Newberg,Nolletti & Bock, LLP (Nolletti defendants) to dismiss the third and fourth causes of action as againstthem; and denied plaintiff's motion to consolidate this action with a fee dispute pending in SupremeCourt, Westchester County, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The underlying divorce action in which defendants represented plaintiff was settled by dictation of asettlement agreement in open court. Plaintiff's motion to set aside the settlement on the ground, interalia, that she lacked the mental capacity to understand and agree to the terms of the settlement wasdenied, which denial was affirmed by the Second Department (Weissman v Weissman, 42 AD3d 448 [2007], lv denied 9NY3d 813 [2007]). There, the Court held the terms of the stipulation to be enforceable, that plaintiff"failed to carry her burden of demonstrating that she lacked the mental capacity to understand andagree to the terms of the [*2]stipulation of settlement," and that sheratified its terms by accepting the benefits thereof for more than one year (id. at 450).

Here, the motion court properly dismissed plaintiff's legal malpractice claims. The evidence showsthat with respect to the Nolletti defendants, the retainer agreement signed by plaintiff contained anexpress waiver relieving the Nolletti defendants from any liability for events occurring in the underlyingdivorce action prior to their engagement (seee.g. Matter of Professional Staff Congress-City Univ. of N.Y. v New York State Pub. Empl. RelationsBd., 7 NY3d 458, 465 [2006]). Based upon the retainer agreement, the Nolletti defendantswould not have been responsible for the claimed malpractice. Moreover, as to all defendants, theevidence establishes that when entering into the settlement of the divorce action, plaintiff acknowledgedin open court that she was satisfied with counsels' representation, and that she entered into thesettlement agreement with the knowledge that her husband's real estate partnership investments had notyet been valued (see Katebi v Fink, 51AD3d 424 [2008]).

The doctrine of collateral estoppel precludes relitigation of the issues as to plaintiff's distributiveaward and mental status. Such issues were previously determined in the settlement, the motion to setaside the settlement was denied and the Second Department affirmed the denial of said order (seeD'Arata v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 76 NY2d 659 [1990]; Siegel v CompetitionImports, 296 AD2d 540, 541-542 [2002]).

The breach of contract claims were properly dismissed as duplicative of the legal malpracticeclaims (see e.g. Tortura v Sullivan PapainBlock McGrath & Cannavo, P.C., 21 AD3d 1082 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 701[2005]).

In view of the foregoing, the court properly denied plaintiff's motion to consolidate this action with afee dispute in Westchester County as academic.

We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Moskowitz, DeGrasse and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.