Breuninger v. T. Edward Williams
- John Cronan
- 1:20-cv-07033
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Breuninger v. Williams, Judge Cronan granted summary judgment against Plaintiffs’ malpractice claim, dismissed it with prejudice, and denied Williams’s fee-counterclaim motion.
The plaintiffs’ legal-malpractice claim was dismissed with prejudice, ending that claim against all defendants. Williams’s counterclaim for unpaid legal fees was not resolved in his favor because his summary-judgment motion was denied. The order also denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee.
What happened
In Breuninger v. T. Edward Williams, the plaintiffs’ remaining claim alleged legal malpractice against Peyrot and Associates, P.C., Edward Williams, and Jane Doe Williams. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asking the court to rule that the claim could not proceed.
The court also considered Williams’s motion for summary judgment on his counterclaim seeking unpaid legal fees from the plaintiffs. No party objected to the magistrate judge’s recommended rulings, and the deadline for objections passed.
Judge John P. Cronan adopted the recommendation in full. He granted the Williams Defendants’ and Peyrot’s motions for summary judgment on the legal-malpractice claim and dismissed that claim with prejudice against all defendants. He denied Williams’s motion for summary judgment on his unpaid-fees counterclaim and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee.
The detailed version
- Breuninger v. T. Edward Williams · No. 1:20-cv-07033
- John Cronan
- Feb. 25, 2025
Background
The plaintiffs’ lone remaining claim was for legal malpractice against Peyrot and Associates, P.C. and the Williams Defendants: Edward Williams and Jane Doe Williams. Peyrot and the Williams Defendants moved for summary judgment on that claim. Williams separately moved for summary judgment on his counterclaim seeking unpaid legal fees from the plaintiffs.
On February 10, 2025, Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger issued a Report and Recommendation. He recommended granting the Williams Defendants’ and Peyrot’s motions for summary judgment on the legal-malpractice claim and dismissing that claim against them. He recommended denying Williams’s motion for summary judgment on his counterclaim.
Review of the Recommendation
The Report and Recommendation gave the parties fourteen days to object and warned that failing to object would waive the right to object. No objections were filed before the deadline. The district court stated that the parties therefore waived the right to object to the recommendation or obtain appellate review of it.
Even though there were no objections, the court conducted a de novo review, meaning an independent review, of the Report and Recommendation. The court found it well reasoned and its conclusions well founded. The court also noted the magistrate judge’s conclusion that the record contained no proof that Jane Doe Williams had a role in the events at issue or received proceeds from any funds involved.
Rulings
Judge John P. Cronan adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The Williams Defendants’ and Peyrot’s motions for summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ legal-malpractice claim were granted, and that claim was dismissed with prejudice against all defendants. “With prejudice” means the claim cannot be brought again in that case.
Williams’s motion for summary judgment on his counterclaim for unpaid legal fees was denied. The order did not resolve that counterclaim in Williams’s favor. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee. Finally, the court scheduled a status conference for March 11, 2025, and directed the clerk to close the three motions.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.