Schauer v. Joyce
New York Court of Appeals
54 N.Y.2d 1, 444 N.Y.S.2d 564, 429 N.E.2d 83 (1981)
- Written by Steven Pacht, JD
Facts
Vivian Schaeur (plaintiff) retained attorney Patrick Joyce (defendant) to represent her in a divorce proceeding. In January 1976, Joyce secured a default divorce decree on Schauer’s behalf, pursuant to which Schauer’s husband was required to pay Schauer $200 in weekly alimony and counsel fees. The out-of-state husband never paid alimony and later moved to vacate the alimony award on the ground that the affidavit Joyce submitted in support of the default judgment against the husband was false. The supreme court granted the husband’s motion and transferred the case to family court. Schauer fired Joyce and hired another attorney, Thomas Gent, Jr. (defendant) to represent her in the divorce proceeding. In November 1977, Gent’s work led the husband to begin paying $125 in weekly alimony going forward. In January 1978, Schauer (represented by new counsel) sued Joyce for malpractice, alleging that Joyce’s conduct caused her to lose $200 per week in alimony between December 1975 and November 1977, $75 per week in prospective alimony payments, and counsel fees. Joyce then brought a third-party contribution complaint against Gent pursuant to Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) § 1401, alleging that Gent was negligent in not seeking to have the original $200 alimony award reinstated or otherwise to seek alimony payments that were due prior to the supreme court’s vacatur. Gent argued that he could not be liable for contribution to Schauer because Gent and Schauer had not been in contractual privity. The appellate division ruled that Joyce was not entitled to contribution from Gent because there was no basis to hold Gent liable for Schauer’s alleged damages. Joyce appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Cooke, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
