Drago v. Buonagurio, 46 N.Y.2d 778 (1978)

An attorney is not liable to third parties for initiating baseless legal proceedings on behalf of a client unless the factual situation falls within established categories of tort or contract liability.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals held that an attorney is not liable to third parties for initiating a baseless lawsuit on behalf of a client, absent a recognized tort or contract cause of action. The court declined to create a new cause of action for such conduct, leaving the remedy for baseless lawsuits to professional disciplinary measures and potential legislative action. This decision emphasizes judicial restraint in expanding attorney liability beyond established legal frameworks.

Facts

The plaintiff, Drago, sued attorney Brownstein (Buonagurio’s predecessor) for initiating a lawsuit against him on behalf of a client. Drago alleged that the lawsuit was baseless and brought without justification, causing him harm.

Procedural History

The Special Term granted Brownstein’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. The Appellate Division reversed. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, reinstating the Special Term’s dismissal.

Issue(s)

Whether an attorney may be held liable to a third party for initiating a baseless legal proceeding on behalf of a client, absent circumstances falling within an established category of tort or contract liability.

Holding

No, because the factual situation did not fall within one of the acknowledged categories of tort or contract liability.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals agreed with the lower courts that the complaint failed to state a cause of action in negligence, abuse of process, or malicious prosecution. The court also rejected the argument that the complaint stated a cause of action for “prima facie tort,” which is defined as “the intentional malicious injury to another by otherwise lawful means without economic or social justification, but solely to harm the other.” The court stated that remedies for baseless lawsuits are best addressed through professional discipline and potential legislative action, rather than creating new causes of action. The court emphasized judicial restraint, noting pending legislative proposals to create new liabilities in such circumstances. As the court noted, the complaint failed to state a cognizable cause of action because the existing factual situations had not fallen within one of the acknowledged categories of tort or contract liability. The court declined to recognize what might be a “new, novel or nameless” cause of action, stating that it would be better suited for the legislature to consider.