Schauer v. Joyce
54 N.Y.2d 1, 444 N.Y.S.2d 564, 429 N.E.2d 83 (1981)
Rule of Law:
CPLR 1401 allows a defendant in a malpractice action to assert a third-party claim for contribution against a successive tortfeasor, such as a subsequent attorney, if their alleged negligence contributed to the same client's injuries, even without direct contractual privity between the tortfeasors.
Facts:
- Vivian G. Schauer retained lawyer Patrick J. Joyce in November 1975 to represent her in a matrimonial action.
- In January 1976, Joyce obtained a default divorce judgment for Mrs. Schauer, including an award of $200 per week in alimony, counsel fees, and possession of the marital residence, but no alimony was ever received by Mrs. Schauer under this decree.
- Mr. Schauer moved to vacate parts of the judgment concerning alimony, counsel fees, and possession of the marital residence, alleging that the affidavit of regularity submitted by Joyce in support of the default judgment falsely stated he had not appeared in the action.
- In April 1977, Supreme Court granted Mr. Schauer’s motion, vacating the contested parts of the judgment and transferring jurisdiction over these matters to the Delaware County Family Court.
- Soon thereafter, Mrs. Schauer discharged Joyce and retained Thomas W. Gent, Jr., to represent her in the matrimonial matter.
- Through Gent’s efforts, Mrs. Schauer began receiving support payments from her former husband in November 1977.
- In January 1978, Mrs. Schauer commenced a malpractice action against Joyce, alleging that Joyce caused her to lose alimony and counsel fees through actions and omissions, particularly the filing of a false affidavit of regularity.
- Mrs. Schauer claimed damages of $200 per week alimony from December 1975 to November 1977, and $75 per week thereafter, due to Joyce's alleged malpractice.
Procedural Posture:
- Mrs. Schauer commenced a malpractice action against Patrick J. Joyce (her first attorney).
- Joyce then brought a third-party action for contribution against Thomas W. Gent, Jr. (Mrs. Schauer's second attorney).
- Special Term dismissed Joyce's third-party complaint for failure to state a cause of action.
- The Appellate Division affirmed Special Term's dismissal, with two Justices dissenting.
- Joyce appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does CPLR 1401 permit a lawyer sued for malpractice to assert a third-party claim for contribution against a subsequent attorney who allegedly contributed to the same client's injuries, even without direct contractual privity between the attorneys?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge Cooke
Yes, CPLR 1401 permits a lawyer sued for malpractice to assert a third-party claim for contribution against a subsequent attorney who allegedly contributed to the same client's injuries, even without direct contractual privity between the attorneys. CPLR 1401, which codified the court’s decision in Dole v Dow Chem. Co., provides for contribution among "two or more persons who are subject to liability for damages for the same personal injury, injury to property or wrongful death." This statute applies not only to joint tortfeasors but also to concurrent, successive, independent, alternative, and even intentional tortfeasors. The key inquiry is not whether the third-party defendant (Gent) owed a duty to the third-party plaintiff (Joyce), but whether both Gent and Joyce owed a duty to the injured party (Mrs. Schauer) and, by breaching their respective duties, contributed to her ultimate injuries. There is no requirement to establish an "elusive 'legal relationship' between the wrongdoers." The court found that Joyce's third-party complaint sufficiently alleged that Gent's alleged negligence—failing to seek reinstatement of the vacated alimony award, failing to make other applications for alimony, or failing to seek a prompt Family Court hearing—could have contributed to or aggravated Mrs. Schauer's primary injury of lost alimony. Since a substantial portion of Mrs. Schauer’s claimed damages occurred after she retained Gent, Gent could be found at least partially responsible for this loss, making him a potential independent, successive tortfeasor encompassed by CPLR 1401.
Concurring - Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer
These judges concurred with the majority opinion.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the broad reach of CPLR 1401, extending contribution claims to successive tortfeasors, particularly in the context of professional malpractice. It emphasizes that the focus for contribution is on the 'same injury' suffered by the plaintiff and whether each defendant breached a duty to that plaintiff, regardless of any direct relationship between the defendants themselves. This decision facilitates the apportionment of fault among multiple parties whose negligence, even if occurring at different times, contributes to a common harm, potentially leading to more complex litigation but ensuring a more equitable distribution of liability among responsible parties in professional services scenarios.
