Chicago Legal Malpractice Lawyer Blog
Kuzar v. Spar & Bernstein, 2026 NY Slip OP 50173, is a decision dismissing a legal malpractice action on the ground that the complaint did not allege sufficient facts to show that, but for the lawyer’s alleged error, the plaintiff would have won the underlying case.
The plaintiff, Juraj Kuzar, sued his former lawyers, Spar & Bernstein, for:
- Legal malpractice
- Breach of contract
He claimed the law firm failed to properly handle an asset forfeiture matter involving about $37,152 seized by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. He said if the lawyers had acted properly and on time, he would have gotten his money back.
What the defendant asked for
The law firm asked the court to dismiss the case, arguing:
- The claim was too late under the statute of limitations.
- The complaint did not state a valid legal malpractice claim.
- The contract claim was duplicative of the malpractice claim.
What the court decided
The court:
- Rejected the statute of limitations defense
- The court found there was evidence suggesting the law firm may have continued representing the plaintiff on the same matter for a longer period.
- That could have tolled, or paused, the limitations period.
- Granted dismissal anyway
- The court said the plaintiff’s allegations were too speculative.
- He did not plead enough facts to show that, but for the lawyers’ negligence, he would have won the forfeiture case.
- He also did not adequately show that the money would definitely have been returned.
- Dismissed the breach of contract claim
- The court found it was based on the same facts as the malpractice claim and did not seek separate damages.
Bottom line
The court dismissed the case because the complaint failed to allege but/for causation. The key language is here:
“Here, even accepting the facts as alleged as true, the complaint lacks sufficient factual allegations to support plaintiff’s contention that he would have succeeded in recovering his seized assets but for defendant’s alleged negligence (see Gopstein v. Bellinson Law, LLC, 227 AD3d 465 [1st Dept 2024]). Plaintiff’s assertion that had defendant timely filed the petition, his money would have been returned to him, and that he would have only been penalized 10% for failing to declare his assets are wholly unsupported, conclusory and speculative. Further, plaintiff fails to rebut defendant’s contention that his forfeiture petition would not have been successful because plaintiff failed establish the source of the funds.”