In MVP Delivery and Logistics, Inc. v. Brown Chiari LLP. , Sup. Ct. Erie, 8/4/2026, we see an unusual denial of a motion to dismiss a complicated attorney malpractice and Judiciary Law 487 case.
“Defendants Brown Chiari LLP, James E. Brown, Esq., Donald P. Chiari, Esq., and Angelo S. Gambino, Esq. (collectively, “Defendants”) move, pursuant to CPLR 3211(aX1) and (aX7), to dismiss the Amended Complaint of Plaintiff MVP Delivery and Logistics, lnc. (“MVP” or
“Plaintiff’) in its entirety. Plaintiff opposes. Having read and considered NYSCEF Documents 41- 58,61-65, and oral argument having been heard on June 10, 2026, Zaid Shukri, Esq.,
appearing for the Plaintiff, and Anthony Rupp, Esq., appearing for the Defendants, and for the reasons set forth below, the motion is DENIED.”
“On July 7, 2004, a motor vehicle owned by MVP and driven by an MVP employee fatally
injured Claudia Carlson. The 2004 accident resulted in a multi-million-dollar judgment against MVP and co-defendants in favor of the Estate of Claudia Carlson, which was represented by Brown Chiari LLP. Subsequent to the verdict, a series of related cases in Erie, Niagara and New York County were commenced in which MVP was a party: (1) National Union Fire lnsurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA v. MVP Delivery and Logistics, lnc. (Erie County lndex No.i 814289/2015) seeking a declaratory judgment on indemnification; (2) MVP DELIVERY AND LOGISTICS, INC v. American lnternational Group, lnc., et al. (New York County lndex No.: 650882/2016; Niagara County lndex No. E169030/2019) seeking a declaratory judgment on MVP’s insured status; and (3) MVP DELIVERY AND LOGISTICS, INC et al v. Goldberg Segalla, LLP (New York County lndex No.: 15752412016, seeking damages for legal malpractice. During the pendency of each ofthe above related actions, Defendant Goldberg Segalla came to represent MVP in each.”
“To establish a cause of action for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must prove “(1) that the
defendant attorney failed to exercise that degree of care, skill, and diligence commonly
possessed by a member of the legal community, (2) proximate cause, (3) damages, and (4) that the plaintiff would have been successful in the underlying action had the attorney exercised due care” (Santaro v Finocchio,221 AD3d 1489, 1490 [4th Dept 20231) The Amended Complaint alleges, with sufficient particularity, that Defendants concealed a conflict of interest arising from their concurrent representation of Carlson, MVP’s judgment creditor; discontinued MVP’s malpractice action against Goldberg Segalla with prejudice, without MVP’s informed consent and without any investigation of its merits; and thereafter coerced MVP into a nuisance-value settlement of its insurance coverage claims to protect Carlson’s competing recovery.
These allegations, accepted as true, are sufficient to allege a breach of the duties of
care and loyalty and to permit a reasonable inference of resulting damages, including the lost value of the discontinued malpractice claim and a diminished settlement of the coverage claims Defendants’ contention that prior judicial rulings establish, as a matter of law, that MVP’s and Carlson’s interests were identical is not borne out by the rulings themselves, which addressed venue, consolidation, and overlapping issues rather than an identity of legal interests, and in any event presents, at most, a question of fact not resolvable on this motion.
Judiciary Law $ 487
The Amended Complaint likewise states a claim under Judiciary Law $ 487, which
imposes treble damages on an attorney who “is guilty of any deceit or collusion, or consents to any deceit or collusion, with intent to deceive the court or any party.” Defendants argue that the Amended Complaint alleges nothing more than ordinary negligence or dissatisfaction with litigation strategy, which does not rise to the level of deceit required under the statute. The Court disagrees. The Amended Complaint alleges a course of intentional, affirmative misconduct directed at MVP, specifically that Defendants concealed their conflict of interest arising from their concurrent representation of Carlson; falsely assured MVP that Brown Chiari would act in MVP’S best interests while its true intent was to protect Carlson’s competing recovery; misrepresented to MVP that its malpractice claim against Goldberg Segalla was meritless, and concealed from MVP both the discontinuance of its malpractice action and the terms of the settlement negotiations it was being pressured to accept.
These are not allegations of mere strategic disagreement or negligent mis.iudgment; if
lrue, they describe knowing, affirmative misrepresentations and concealment undertaken to benefit Defendants and their other client at MVP’s expense, which is sufficient to state a claim under Judiciary Law s 487 at the pleading stage (see Armstrong v Blank Rome LtP, 126 AD3d 427 , 427-28 [1st Dept 20151).”