Wiggins v. Liakas Law, P.C.

Background

Reginald Wiggins brought one legal-malpractice claim against Liakas Law, P.C., Paul Prestia, Esq., and The Prestia Law Firm, PLLC. He alleged that the defendants failed to file timely notices of claim identifying individual New York City police officers in his underlying state-court action. According to Wiggins, that failure led him to pay an additional 10 percent contingency fee to the law firm that handled his appeal after the state court initially dismissed his claims against the individual officers.

The First Department later reversed the dismissal, and Wiggins’s claims against the individual officers remained pending in state court. Wiggins’s amended complaint alleged that his original retainer agreement did not cover an appeal, while a later agreement required an additional 10 percent contingency fee if he recovered damages.

Motions to Dismiss

The defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not adequately state a legal claim. They argued that Wiggins could not establish proximate cause or actual damages. Among other things, they argued that his underlying false-arrest and malicious-prosecution claims would fail and that the additional contingency fee was unenforceable under New York’s rules governing attorney compensation.

The court declined to predict the outcome of the pending state-court claims. It held that it would be premature at the pleading stage to conclude that those claims were legally meritless. The court also held that Wiggins’s allegations were sufficient at that stage to bring the additional appellate fee within a New York rule allowing separately agreed fees for appellate work when the original retainer excludes that work. The court noted that the fee issue could be reconsidered at the summary-judgment stage on a more complete factual record.

Stay and Disposition

The court explained that Wiggins’s ability to prove malpractice-related causation and damages depended in part on the result of the state-court action. If Wiggins could not recover against the individual officers, he might be unable to show that the defendants’ alleged failure caused a legally recognizable injury. The court also concluded that dismissing the malpractice action and requiring Wiggins to file a new action later could create a statute-of-limitations problem.

Judge Castel therefore denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss without prejudice and stayed the action pending further order. The court directed Wiggins’s counsel to provide a status update about the state-court action by June 30, 2023, and every 90 days afterward. The court reserved the right to modify the stay for good cause.