Legal Malpractice: Sevey v. Friedlander

Listen to this article

Appellate Division, Third Department

Legal Malpractice

Divorce Settlement —Unfavorable Terms

Sevey v. Friedlander
509959
Appealed from Supreme Court, Tompkins County

Background: In 2002, the plaintiff retained the defendant Betty D. Friedlander of the defendant Friedlander and Friedlander PC to represent him in his divorce action. Prior to trial, the divorcing parties negotiated a settlement. A stipulation was placed on the record in July 2003 setting forth the terms thereof and the plaintiff, an ostensibly sophisticated businessperson, acknowledged on the record that he understood and accepted the terms of the stipulation. The terms were included in the divorce judgment, which was executed and entered in August 2003.
Thereafter, the plaintiff became disenchanted with some of the financial terms of the judgment of divorce and he commenced this legal malpractice action in March 2006 asserting, among other things, that Friedlander had pressured him to accept an unfavorable settlement. Following disclosure, the defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Supreme Court granted the motion and the plaintiff appeals.
The defendants established that the settlement was, in many regards, financially favorable to the plaintiff. For example, his temporary child support for his three children of $2,000 per month was reduced in the stipulation to $650 per month and he agreed to pay that amount for four years at which time his wife was required to pay child support to the plaintiff for their son who resided with him. Further, his stipulated income under the settlement didn’t include a $20,000 bonus that he received.

Ruling: The plaintiff contends that he would have received a more favorable result if he had gone to trial. On this record, his contention is entirely speculative according to the court due to certain favorable terms that were agreed upon in the stipulation. The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as his contentions are based on very suspect speculation. The order granting summary judgment is affirmed.

Edward E. Kopko for the appellant; and Kevin M. Hayden of Hiscock & Barclay for the respondents