Orange Tab B005 -- Michael Kozek -- Attorney Malpractice Framework¶

GUARDRAIL: ORANGE -- PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE

Attorney malpractice claim against successor counsel. Separate defendant, separate analysis. No primary case strategy. Valuation TBD pending malpractice-counsel review.

POSTURE NOTE¶

Elements map and standard-of-care analysis for attorney malpractice claim against Michael P. Kozek, Esq. / Ween & Kozek PLLC. Successor counsel on HP 6086/2020 following the November 15, 2022 substitution from Goodfarb & Sandercock.

This document is organized around three distinct malpractice theories arising during the Kozek representation period: (1) failure to supplement the Motion to Restore record during the 10-month window between substitution and the Smith decision; (2) failure to perfect the appeal after filing the Notice of Appeal; and (3) failure to communicate with the client concerning the appellate proceeding, documented by a corpus-wide review of the Kozek Attorney Correspondence archive.

Kozek's liability posture is categorically different from Sandercock's. Kozek did not create the evidentiary deficiency in the Motion to Restore -- he inherited it. His exposure arises from failure to cure a known (or knowable) defect during a substantial period in which cure was available, and from failure to keep the client informed of an adverse proceeding that was continuing to deteriorate in the client's absence from the information stream.

The theories are analytically separable but evidentiarily reinforcing. The communication gap (Section G) compounds Sections E and F: although Christian was informed of the motion denial itself on September 29, 2023 (via Kozek's same-day forward of the NYSCEF decision notification, with a minimizing cover note -- see WT-121), he was not informed that the Notice of Appeal had been filed, that the perfection deadline was approaching, or that the appeal had been dismissed. Without that information, he had no opportunity to intervene, seek substitute counsel, or demand supplementation of the record. The communication gap is both a standalone breach of RPC 1.4 (duty to keep client informed) and a compounding element of the trial-court and appellate-court failures.

No formal termination of the Kozek representation has been documented. The billing relationship continued through late 2024. The current posture requires malpractice counsel to evaluate whether continuous representation tolling applies and to confirm the final termination date before any filing decision.

All theories below the primary are labeled by tier. Valuation is TBD pending malpractice-counsel review. Accrual and tolling analysis are required from qualified malpractice counsel before any filing.

Case Overview¶

Defendant: Michael P. Kozek, Esq. / Ween & Kozek PLLC (also filing as "Kozek-Perkins, M." on Notice of Appeal; see WT-117 Part G)

Firm: Ween & Kozek PLLC, 20 Jay Street, Brooklyn, NY (per email signature blocks in Kozek Attorney Correspondence archive)

Associate of Record: Nina C. Oksman, Senior Associate (per email signature blocks)

Chief Operating Officer: Michael Busch (billing correspondence originator)

Representation Period: November 15, 2022 -- present (no formal termination documented; billing continued into late 2024; Christian's "Checking in" email of September 26, 2024 refers to the HP case as ongoing)

Retainer Scope: HP 6086/2020 matter, inherited from Goodfarb & Sandercock via substitution of counsel dated November 15, 2022 (NYSCEF Doc #25). The substitution occurred on the same day that Doc #24 set a sur-reply deadline of November 15, 2022. Additional retained matters included the 226 Franklin PAA Administrative Appeal and OATH Harassment proceedings (separate from HP 6086).

Theory Hierarchy:

Tier	Section	Theory
Primary	E	Motion Supplementation Failure (Nov 2022 -- Sep 2023)
Elevated Secondary	F	Appeal Perfection Failure (Oct 2023 -- Sep 2024)
Elevated Secondary	G	Client Communication Gap / Failure to Inform (Sep 2023 -- Sep 2024+)
Supporting	H	RATA Form Internal Contradiction

Statute Status: The earliest plausible accrual date (September 29, 2023, motion denial) places the primary theory well within the three-year New York legal malpractice statute of limitations. Continuous representation tolling may extend the period further because no formal termination has been documented. Accrual and tolling analysis must be performed by qualified malpractice counsel before any filing decision. Do not rely on any specific date estimate in this document.

Estimated Recovery: TBD -- pending malpractice-counsel review and disciplined damages modeling.

Legal Theory Framework¶

Core Elements Map¶

Duty: Kozek owed the ordinary professional duty of competent representation in motion practice, appellate practice, case analysis of an inherited file, and client communication. The duty of communication is defined by RPC 1.4 and requires the attorney to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter and to explain matters to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions.
Primary Breach: Over a 10+ month window between the November 15, 2022 substitution of counsel and the September 29, 2023 Smith decision, Kozek did not move to supplement the Motion to Restore record with the Paragraph 5 compliance proof that existed in the inherited files. Smith denied the motion specifically because that proof was not before the court.
Elevated Secondary Breach: On October 31, 2023, Kozek filed a Notice of Appeal asserting on the RATA form that the Smith decision was "based upon arguments that were never raised in opposition to Petitioner's motion and which are unsupported by the law and the so-ordered stipulation of settlement." Between October 31, 2023 and September 23, 2024, no appellate brief or record was filed. The Appellate Term dismissed the appeal for failure to perfect.
Elevated Secondary Breach: Across the entire September 29, 2023 through September 26, 2024 window, no substantive communication from Kozek to Christian Gray concerning the HP 6086/2020 appellate proceeding appears in the reviewed 729-page Kozek Attorney Correspondence archive, under either per-entry enumeration or a five-term keyword sweep. Christian's September 26, 2024 "Checking in" email -- sent three days after the appellate dismissal -- confirms that he did not know the appeal had been dismissed.
Supporting Breach: The RATA form and the failure to perfect create an internal contradiction. Kozek asserted on a sworn court filing that the Smith decision was wrong, then did not take the action required to have that assertion tested on appeal.
Causation -- Primary: The Motion to Restore was denied on evidentiary grounds that Kozek's inherited files could have cured during his 10+ month tenure. Had the record been supplemented, the motion would have been decided on the merits of Paragraph 5 compliance rather than on the absence of proof.
Causation -- Elevated Secondary (Appeal): The Appellate Term dismissal order itself establishes direct causation: the appeal was dismissed for failure to perfect. Had the appeal been perfected, it would have been decided on the merits.
Causation -- Elevated Secondary (Communication): The communication gap deprived Christian of the opportunity to seek substitute counsel, demand supplementation of the record, or otherwise intervene to cure the defect at either the trial or appellate stage. It also bears on any discovery-rule or continuous-representation tolling analysis.
Damages: Categories include loss of a merits adjudication of the Motion to Restore, loss of appellate merits review, delay-related harm, added legal fees to untangle the procedural posture after the fact, and any claim-impairment consequences traceable to the unadjudicated HP proceeding on the related Supreme Court damages case (Index No. 506171/2021). Separation from underlying landlord-caused damages and from the Sandercock-track theories requires expert analysis and coordination with B001 causation.

Recovery Posture¶

Primary recovery source: Professional liability insurance, if available
Primary damages theme: Loss of an appellate determination that would have tested the Smith decision on its merits, and loss of a merits determination of Paragraph 5 compliance
Secondary damages themes: Delay-related exposure, added legal fees, and any claim-impairment traceable to the unadjudicated HP proceeding
Communication-gap framing: The absence of client notification is not merely a quality-of-representation issue; it compounds the trial and appellate failures by eliminating Christian's opportunity to intervene
Valuation: TBD pending malpractice-counsel review; no recovery figure should be stated at this stage

Section A -- Statute of Limitations¶

A.1 Accrual and Tolling -- Counsel Analysis Required¶

In New York, legal malpractice claims accrue when the malpractice occurs and the client can seek relief -- not when the malpractice is discovered. There is no general discovery rule for legal malpractice accrual in New York. The recognized tolling doctrine is continuous representation: the limitations period may be tolled while the attorney continues to represent the client on the same matter. Accrual and tolling analysis must be performed by qualified malpractice counsel before any filing decision. No comfort should be taken from any specific date estimate in this document.

A.2 Key Dates for Counsel Analysis¶

Substitution of counsel (representation begins): November 15, 2022 (NYSCEF Doc #25)
Smith decision (Motion to Restore denied): September 29, 2023 (NYSCEF Docs #31, #32)
Notice of Entry on Smith decision: October 2, 2023 (Doc #32)
Notice of Appeal filed: October 31, 2023 (NYSCEF Doc #37; RATA appellate form attached)
Appellate Term dismissal for failure to perfect: September 23, 2024 (NYSCEF Doc #38)
Notice of Entry on appellate dismissal: October 2, 2024 (Doc #38)
Client "Checking in" email to Kozek: September 26, 2024 (three days post-dismissal; described HP case as active)
Last documented billing invoice: approximately September 2024 (per WT-121 Part D.3)
Client personal access to NYSCEF docket: March 2026 (first personal discovery of appeal history)
Formal termination: NOT DOCUMENTED as of this draft

A.3 Statute of Limitations Posture¶

The primary theory (Motion Supplementation Failure, Section E) has its latest plausible accrual date at September 29, 2023 (the Smith decision), placing the three-year limitations period end at approximately September 29, 2026 -- well within statute as of the current date. The elevated-secondary appeal theory (Section F) accrues no earlier than September 23, 2024, placing its outside limit at approximately September 23, 2027.

Continuous representation tolling may extend both periods. No formal termination of the Kozek representation has been documented. The billing relationship continued and the client described the case as ongoing as of September 26, 2024. Whether continuous representation remains in effect as of the current date is a question for malpractice counsel; the record does not definitively close the door.

Unlike the Sandercock track (B001), where the statute of limitations is the principal filing-urgency constraint, the Kozek track is not currently deadline-driven. The urgency is evidence preservation, formal termination, and file-transfer documentation.

A.4 Items to Obtain for Counsel Review¶

Kozek engagement letter and initial intake date
Full Ween & Kozek billing records for the HP 6086/2020 matter
All correspondence from Ween & Kozek after September 26, 2024 (to establish last affirmative representation activity)
Formal termination or withdrawal correspondence (if any)
File-transfer records and custody chain
Client communications requesting status updates not answered
Any retainer or engagement documentation concerning appellate representation specifically (the Sandercock retainer expressly excluded appellate work; the Kozek retainer scope on appeal is not currently established in this framework)

Section B -- Duty and Scope Documentation¶

B.1 Substitution of Counsel -- Confirmed¶

Source: NYSCEF Doc #25, Substitution of Attorney, filed November 15, 2022. See WT-117.

The substitution replaced Goodfarb & Sandercock, LLP with Ween & Kozek PLLC as counsel of record for respondent Christian Gray in HP 6086/2020. Doc #26 is the notice of appearance. Substitution occurred on the same day that Doc #24 set a sur-reply deadline (November 15, 2022), meaning Kozek entered the case after the motion package and reply posture had already been built by Sandercock, but before any decision had been rendered.

Significance: By the time Kozek entered the case, the Motion to Restore had been fully briefed: Docs #11-16 (motion papers, June 14, 2022), Docs #17-21 (opposition, July 28, 2022), Docs #22-23 (reply papers, August 31, 2022). The factual record placed before the court was Sandercock's work product. Kozek's duty on inheritance was to review, evaluate, and determine whether the existing record supported the relief sought -- and if not, to move to supplement.

B.2 Retainer Scope -- Requires Confirmation¶

The specific scope of the Kozek retainer is not currently documented in this framework. Counsel should obtain the engagement letter to confirm:

Whether the representation was limited to HP 6086/2020 or extended to related matters
Whether appellate work was within scope or required a separate engagement
Whether the representation included the Supreme Court damages case (SCC 506171/2021)
Whether termination provisions or withdrawal procedures were specified
Rate structure and billing arrangement

The fact that Kozek did file the Notice of Appeal on October 31, 2023 indicates that at least initial appellate work was understood to be within scope, in contrast to the Sandercock retainer's express appellate exclusion.

The Kozek Attorney Correspondence archive reflects that Ween & Kozek also represented Christian on two additional matters separate from HP 6086/2020:

226 Franklin PAA Administrative Appeal (Loft Board administrative proceeding; Nina Oksman handled substitution correspondence in November 2022)
OATH Harassment Proceeding (TH-221; see 226 Franklin harassment substitution of counsel PDF)

These matters are relevant to the B005 framework because: (1) they establish the ongoing attorney-client relationship during the HP 6086 appellate window; (2) they may inform the continuous representation tolling analysis; and (3) the 226 Franklin PAA Admin Appeal is the source of 32 of the 34 "appeal" hits in the corpus-wide keyword sweep documented in WT-121 D.5 -- establishing that the word "appeal" appears frequently in the archive in other contexts, which strengthens rather than weakens the zero-hit finding for HP 6086 appellate communication.

B.4 Documents for Counsel Review¶

Kozek engagement letter and retainer agreement
Ween & Kozek intake notes and file-open documentation
Full file-transfer records from Goodfarb & Sandercock
All NYSCEF filings in HP 6086/2020 (WT-117)
Any engagement documentation specifically addressing appellate representation

Section C -- Causation¶

C.1 Primary Causation Chain (Motion Supplementation Failure)¶

The motion-supplementation theory has a two-step causation chain. First, the Motion to Restore was denied on September 29, 2023 for failure to prove Paragraph 5 compliance -- five specific evidentiary gaps identified in the Smith decision, all of which corresponded to documents that existed in the inherited files (see WT-118 Part F.2 for the findings-to-evidence mapping). Second, Kozek had a 10+ month window between substitution and decision during which supplemental affirmations or exhibits could have been filed. The NYSCEF record shows that during this window, Kozek's only filings were adjournment stipulations (Docs #27-30). No supplemental affirmations or exhibits were filed.

The causation argument is a loss-of-chance framing: had Kozek supplemented the record with the available compliance proof, the motion would have been decided on the merits of Paragraph 5 compliance rather than denied on the absence of proof. Whether Smith would have granted the motion on a complete record is a question for counsel's merits analysis; what is established on the present record is that the denial's stated basis was curable.

C.2 Elevated Secondary Causation Chain (Appeal Perfection Failure)¶

The appeal perfection theory has the cleanest documentary causation chain of any theory in this framework. The Appellate Term order of September 23, 2024 (Doc #38) dismisses the appeal explicitly for failure to perfect, stating that the appeal was placed on the dismissal calendar and no extension of time to perfect had been granted. Causation is established by the face of the dismissal order: the appeal was dismissed because a brief and record were not filed, not because the merits were reached.

The damages theory for Section F is loss of appellate review. Had the appeal been perfected, the Appellate Term would have addressed the merits of the Smith decision -- including the argument Kozek himself asserted on the RATA form that the decision was "based upon arguments that were never raised in opposition."

C.3 Elevated Secondary Causation Chain (Communication Gap)¶

The communication gap theory has a different causal structure. The harm is loss of client autonomy during the period when intervention could have cured the trial and appellate defects. Specifically: had Christian known on or near October 31, 2023 that a Notice of Appeal had been filed, he could have sought substitute counsel to perfect the appeal, demanded that Kozek perfect it, or engaged appellate specialist counsel. Had he known in Spring 2024 that the perfection deadline was approaching, he could have taken the same steps. Had he known on September 23, 2024 that the appeal had been dismissed, he could have evaluated remedial options within the short window available.

The Sept 26, 2024 "Checking in" email is the contemporaneous documentation of Christian's belief-state at the moment of dismissal. Three days post-dismissal, he described the HP case as active and asked about settlement posture. That email is independent evidence that the communication gap was actively operating at the outside edge of the relevant window.

C.4 Damages Separation Required¶

Kozek-track malpractice damages must be separated from Sandercock-track damages (B001 Section C.3) and from underlying landlord-caused damages. The theories compensate for different harms:

Sandercock (B001 primary): loss of a merits adjudication because proof was not initially placed before the court
Kozek (B005 primary): loss of the curative opportunity that existed during the 10+ month inheritance window
Kozek (B005 elevated secondary): loss of appellate review
Underlying landlord case: unremediated conditions and related damages

Counsel must structure damages to avoid double recovery and to attribute each harm to the responsible actor. Kozek may argue that Sandercock's original filing created the evidentiary deficiency and that it was not his responsibility to cure a predecessor's work product; this does not eliminate Kozek's liability for failing to act on a knowable and curable defect during a 10+ month window but creates a potential comparative-fault allocation question that counsel should address in coordination with the Sandercock track (see B001 Section C.3). Expert analysis required.

Section D -- Billing, Retainer Structure, and Financial Relationships¶

D.1 Billing Posture¶

Ween & Kozek billed on an hourly basis (standard for the firm; rate details require retainer confirmation). Automated MyCase invoice notifications were sent throughout the representation period, with billing follow-up from COO Michael Busch during periods of unpaid balance. The billing pattern is itself significant: see WT-121 D.3 for the full chronology. During the September 2023 through September 2024 appellate window, the firm sent multiple automated invoice notifications and at least five personal billing follow-up emails from Busch, while no substantive HP 6086 communication from Kozek to Christian about the appellate proceeding appears in the record.

D.2 Billing During the Communication Gap¶

The contrast between active billing and absent substantive communication during the appellate window is relevant to both the merits of the communication-gap theory and to damages. The firm was affirmatively seeking payment for representation on the HP matter while the case deteriorated without client notification. Whether this constitutes a breach of fiduciary duty in addition to the RPC 1.4 communication breach is a question for counsel.

D.3 Billing Records -- Discoverable Asset¶

Complete Ween & Kozek billing records for the HP 6086/2020 matter are discoverable and should be obtained. Entries referencing "appeal," "appellate brief," "record on appeal," or "perfection" would be directly relevant to both Section E and Section F. The absence of such entries (if confirmed by the full billing ledger) would be additional documentary evidence of inaction.

D.4 Items to Obtain¶

Complete Ween & Kozek billing ledger for HP 6086/2020
All automated invoice notifications for the representation period
Personal billing correspondence from Michael Busch
Any entries referencing appellate work
Total fees billed and paid during the representation

Section E -- PRIMARY -- Motion Supplementation Failure¶

E.1 Theory¶

Between November 15, 2022 (substitution) and September 29, 2023 (Smith decision), Kozek had the opportunity and the means to supplement the Motion to Restore record with the Paragraph 5 compliance proof that existed in the inherited files. He did not. The motion was denied on the specific evidentiary grounds that supplementation could have addressed.

Kozek was not responsible for the original evidentiary deficiency -- that is Sandercock's responsibility (see B001 Section E). Kozek's responsibility is for the failure to cure during a period in which cure was available. The NYSCEF record shows that during the 10+ month window, Kozek's only filings on HP 6086 were adjournment stipulations (Docs #27-30). No supplemental affirmations or exhibits were filed. No motion to reopen the record was made. No notice of motion to supplement was submitted.

E.2 Smith's Findings Mapped to Evidence in Inherited Files¶

The analytical work here is substantially the same as B001 Section E.2 but attributed to Kozek's window of opportunity rather than Sandercock's original filing:

Smith's Stated Finding (Doc #31)	Evidence That Existed in the Inherited Files	Source	Significance for Kozek
Motion devoid of respondent's Post Remediation Report (the document required to trigger the Olmstead Post-Remediation Report)	ALC PRR itself (see WT-108)	Inherited file / WT-108	Available to Kozek throughout the 10-month window
Olmstead report (Doc #16) "completely devoid of the date that respondent's remediator 'cleared the work'" -- preventing the court from computing the Olmstead Inspection Deadline	ALC PRR identifies July 28, 2021 inspection and August 3, 2021 report date -- the dates required to compute the deadline	ALC PRR / WT-108	Available to Kozek; a supplemental Olmsted affirmation could have stated the date explicitly
No proof the Post Remediation Report was emailed in compliance with Paragraph 5 of the stipulation	STIP-EMAIL-1904 (Aug 11, 2021): Skaller-to-Sandercock PRR transmittal establishing Day 0	Email archive transferred from Sandercock	Available to Kozek for inclusion in any supplemental affirmation
No proof Olmstead conducted his inspection within 5 days of the email (Olmstead Inspection Deadline)	Aug 16, 2021 inspection scheduling and WT-108B inspection results; Prestige COC	Inherited file / WT-108B	Available to Kozek throughout the 10-month window
No proof Olmstead emailed respondent's counsel a copy of the Olmstead Post Remediation Report within 14 days of his inspection	STIP-EMAIL-1927: August 19, 2021 transmittal to Skaller including notice of default and the Olmsted draft report -- three days after the August 16 inspection, well within the 14-day window	Inherited file	Available to Kozek

E.3 Standard of Care Argument¶

Competent successor counsel inheriting a fully briefed motion with the decision still pending has an affirmative duty to review the motion record and assess whether it supports the relief sought. When the record is identifiably deficient on its face, the duty extends to evaluating whether supplementation is available and appropriate. The standard measure of performance is not the ultimate outcome but the reasonable attorney's response to a knowable defect.

Kozek inherited a motion that Sandercock had filed on June 14, 2022. He had the reply papers (Docs #22-23) in hand. The opposition had challenged the motion on evidentiary and admissibility grounds. Smith's denial on those grounds on September 29, 2023 was not an unforeseeable outcome; the opposition had explicitly raised them. During the Nov 2022 - Sep 2023 window, Kozek's firm attended conferences, negotiated adjournments, and handled the 226 Franklin PAA matter and OATH proceeding. The HP 6086 motion sat in the same docket without supplementation.

The "zone of tactical judgment" defense available for a tactical decision not to supplement is a question for expert testimony. A plaintiff's malpractice expert would likely argue that no reasonable successor counsel, having reviewed the motion and opposition papers, would have allowed the motion to be decided without curing a curable evidentiary deficiency of the type Smith ultimately identified.

E.4 What Kozek Could Have Done¶

Reviewed the inherited motion papers and Sandercock's reply upon substitution
Cross-referenced Smith's pending motion against the opposition's evidentiary objections
Identified the Paragraph 5 proof gap (the same gap that Pryor Cashman's March 25, 2026 Evidence Chain Analysis identifies retrospectively)
Moved to supplement the record with STIP-EMAIL-1904, the ALC PRV, the Olmsted inspection materials, and the notice of default
Presented the supplemental record at one of the court appearances during December 2022 through September 2023
Alternatively, filed a motion for leave to submit supplemental affirmations addressing the evidentiary gaps

None of these steps is documented in the NYSCEF record or in the Kozek Attorney Correspondence archive.

E.5 Evidence Sources¶

NYSCEF Docs #25-#30 (Kozek's pre-decision filings -- all adjournment stipulations and substitution paperwork)
NYSCEF Docs #11-16, #22-23 (the inherited Sandercock motion and reply papers)
NYSCEF Doc #31 (Smith decision, September 29, 2023)
WT-117: NYSCEF HP 6086/2020 Docket Analysis
WT-118 Part F: Stipulation Compliance Timeline Analysis
Pryor Cashman Evidence Chain Analysis v1.2 (March 25, 2026)

Section F -- ELEVATED SECONDARY -- Appeal Perfection Failure¶

F.1 Theory¶

On October 31, 2023, Kozek filed a Notice of Appeal from the Smith decision (NYSCEF Doc #37). The RATA appellate form attached to the notice stated that the lower-court decision was wrong. Between October 31, 2023 and September 23, 2024, no appellate brief or record was filed. On September 23, 2024, the Appellate Term dismissed the appeal for failure to perfect (Doc #38). No extension of time to perfect had been granted.

This theory is placed as Elevated Secondary rather than co-equal Primary because (a) the handoff analysis treats Section E as the core Kozek theory by virtue of the earliest opportunity to cure, and (b) damages on an appellate theory require a further lost-chance argument (what would the Appellate Term have held on the merits if the appeal had been perfected). Nonetheless, Section F has the strongest direct documentary causation of any theory in this framework, and the RATA form supplies a piece of evidence that makes this theory difficult for the defense to position within the "zone of tactical judgment."

F.2 The RATA Form -- Kozek's Own Assertion that the Decision Was Wrong¶

The Notice of Appeal, Doc #37, contains the following language on the RATA appellate form stating the basis for the appeal:

The order "improperly denied the motion based upon arguments that were never raised in opposition to Petitioner's motion and which are unsupported by the law and the so-ordered stipulation of settlement."

See WT-117 Part G for the full citation.

This statement is significant for three reasons:

It is a formal court filing reflecting Kozek's professional assessment, under his name, that the Smith decision was erroneous on the merits.
The assertion is specific: the decision was based on arguments "never raised in opposition." This is a reviewable procedural-error claim that would be a proper subject for appellate review.
Having filed that claim, Kozek then did not prosecute it. The appeal was dismissed on pure procedural grounds before the Appellate Term ever heard the argument.

F.3 Causation¶

The Appellate Term dismissal order itself is the causation document. The appeal was dismissed because no brief was filed -- not because the Appellate Term reviewed the merits and rejected them. The procedural cause of dismissal is on the face of the order.

The lost-chance damages argument follows: had the appeal been perfected, the Appellate Term would have addressed the merits of the argument Kozek himself articulated on the RATA form. Whether the Appellate Term would have reversed on that ground is a question of appellate merits analysis for counsel. What is established on the record is that the court never reached the question because the appeal was not perfected.

F.4 Standard of Care Argument¶

Filing a Notice of Appeal and then failing to perfect it is at the outer edge of attorney discretion. A failure to perfect without a corresponding withdrawal motion, client consent, or intervening circumstance is difficult to defend as a tactical choice. The Kozek Attorney Correspondence archive contains no evidence of any such circumstance: no client consent to withdraw the appeal, no motion to withdraw, no correspondence discussing a strategic reason to allow the appeal to be dismissed by default.

The failure to perfect in this case cannot be explained as a late-stage reassessment of merits. Kozek himself, on October 31, 2023, asserted the decision was wrong. If he changed his mind at some point during the perfection window, no documentary evidence of that reassessment appears in the archive.

F.5 Evidence Sources¶

NYSCEF Doc #37 (Notice of Appeal, October 31, 2023, with RATA appellate form)
NYSCEF Doc #38 (Appellate Term dismissal, September 23, 2024)
WT-117 Part G: Appeal Record
Appellate Term Docket 2023-01216 KC
Appellate panel: Cheree A. Buggs, J.P.; Wavny Toussaint; Marina Cora Mundy
Kozek Attorney Correspondence archive (complete; zero appellate-strategy discussions per WT-121 D.5)

Section G -- ELEVATED SECONDARY -- Client Communication Gap / Failure to Inform¶

G.1 Theory¶

From September 29, 2023 (Smith decision) through at least September 26, 2024 (Christian's "Checking in" email), no substantive communication from Kozek to Christian Gray concerning the HP 6086/2020 appellate proceeding appears in the reviewed Kozek Attorney Correspondence archive. This absence is established under two independent review methods: per-entry enumeration (WT-121 Parts C-E) and a corpus-wide keyword sweep using five search terms (WT-121 D.5).

RPC 1.4 requires the attorney to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter and to explain matters to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions. The duty extends specifically to significant events in the representation. The filing of a Notice of Appeal, the running of a perfection deadline, and the dismissal of an appeal are significant events in any representation. None of them were communicated.

G.2 Documentary Foundation -- WT-121 v1.2¶

The documentary foundation for this theory is WT-121 (Kozek HP 6086 Correspondence Timeline) in its v1.2 state. WT-121 establishes:

Per-entry enumeration (WT-121 Parts C-E): Every substantive HP 6086 communication from Kozek to Christian in the post-Smith-decision period is enumerated with PDF page pinpoints. The total is four substantive communications (Sept 29 2023 Smith decision forward, Dec 20 2023 meeting proposal, Jan 3 2024 scope discussion, Jan 4 2024 call scheduling), all of which concerned either the decision itself or proposed scope-of-work discussions with the landlord side. None addressed the appeal filing, briefing, perfection deadlines, or dismissal. See WT-121 D.2 for the absence enumeration.

Keyword sweep (WT-121 D.5): A corpus-wide case-insensitive search of the full 729-page Kozek Attorney Correspondence PDF using five terms ("Notice of Appeal," "Appellate Term," "dismiss," "perfect," and the bare term "appeal") produced the following results:

Search term	Raw hits	In-scope hits (HP 6086 appellate)
Notice of Appeal	0	0
Appellate Term	0	0
dismiss (all forms)	0	0
perfect (all forms)	1	0
appeal (bare)	34	0

The single "perfect" hit is a colloquial "Oh perfect" exclamation on p. 111, not the appellate sense. The 34 "appeal" hits consist of 32 hits concerning the 226 Franklin PAA Administrative Appeal (a separate Loft Board proceeding), 1 hit concerning an unrelated tenant-association "Access case," and 1 hit concerning unit F2's OATH loft-law coverage determination. None reference the HP 6086/2020 appellate proceeding.

The two review methods produce consistent results. The per-entry enumeration establishes that the four substantive communications in the relevant window did not address the appeal; the keyword sweep establishes that no other communication in any portion of the corpus addressed the appeal either. The combined result forecloses the "you missed an email" rebuttal.

G.3 Lead Exhibit -- The September 26, 2024 "Checking In" Email¶

Three days after the Appellate Term dismissal, Christian sent Kozek an email titled "Checking in" describing the HP case as ongoing and asking about settlement posture. The verbatim text is preserved in the Kozek Attorney Correspondence PDF (see WT-121 C.8).

The email asks: "What's the current status of the situation?" and "I wanted to ask about the terms you would present to Marty's legal team" [referring to settlement discussion].

This email is contemporaneous independent evidence of Christian's belief-state at the moment of appellate dismissal. Three days after the appeal had been dismissed, he described the case as active and asked about settlement. That description is fundamentally inconsistent with knowing that the appeal had been dismissed for failure to perfect.

As evidence, the Checking In email serves two functions: 1. It establishes the communication gap was actively operating at the outer edge of the window (not merely a historical absence). 2. It provides independent contemporaneous documentation of belief-state, which forecloses any argument that Christian knew but did not act.

G.4 Standard of Care Argument¶

RPC 1.4 communication duties are not satisfied by billing activity. During the appellate window, Ween & Kozek sent multiple automated invoice notifications and at least five personal billing follow-up emails from COO Busch, including one on September 24, 2024 (one day after the dismissal). The firm was in active contact with Christian for billing purposes. The absence of substantive case-status communication during that same window is not attributable to loss of contact or unavailability of the client.

The standard of care argument is direct: a reasonably competent attorney, having filed a Notice of Appeal on the client's behalf, has an affirmative duty to inform the client of the filing, the anticipated perfection deadline, the strategic options during the briefing period, and any dismissal or other adverse disposition. None of these communications appear in the archive.

The Checking In email also implicitly establishes that, at the point of sending it, Christian had not been informed of the dismissal. Had he been, the email's framing would have been materially different. That internal evidence is independently probative of the communication gap.

G.5 Compounding Effect on Sections E and F¶

The communication gap is a standalone breach of RPC 1.4 and standalone actionable as malpractice. It is also a compounding element of Sections E and F:

Compounding Section E: Had Kozek communicated during the Dec 2022 - Sep 2023 window that the motion record contained an evidentiary gap that could be cured by supplementation, Christian could have authorized, demanded, or even paid for that supplementation. The absence of that communication eliminated his opportunity to participate in the curative decision.
Compounding Section F: Had Kozek communicated during the Oct 2023 - Sep 2024 window that a Notice of Appeal had been filed, that an appellate brief needed to be filed, and that a perfection deadline was running, Christian could have demanded perfection, engaged appellate specialist counsel, or sought substitute counsel.

In both cases, the communication gap converted a curable attorney failure into an irreversible client harm.

G.6 Evidence Sources¶

WT-121 v1.2: Full Kozek HP 6086 Correspondence Timeline
WT-121 Parts C-E: Per-entry enumeration of substantive communications
WT-121 D.2: Absent communications enumeration
WT-121 D.5: Keyword sweep results (dual-method verification)
WT-121 C.8: Sep 26 2024 "Checking In" email
Kozek_Attorney_Correspondence.pdf (729 pp source archive)
RPC 1.4 (New York Rules of Professional Conduct)

Section H -- SUPPORTING -- RATA Form Internal Contradiction¶

H.1 Theory¶

Section H does not stand alone. It ties Sections E, F, and G together through a single piece of evidence: the RATA appellate form attached to the Notice of Appeal (Doc #37).

On October 31, 2023, Kozek signed and filed a court document asserting the Smith decision was wrong because it was "based upon arguments that were never raised in opposition to Petitioner's motion and which are unsupported by the law and the so-ordered stipulation of settlement." That assertion is his own professional statement, made in a formal court filing, that the decision should be reviewed and reversed.

Between October 31, 2023 and September 23, 2024, three things did not happen:

No motion to supplement the trial court record after Smith's decision (which, while procedurally awkward after the fact, is technically possible through motion practice)
No appellate brief or record filed with the Appellate Term
No communication to Christian that any of the above had occurred or was running

The internal contradiction is between Kozek's formal court statement that the decision was wrong and his subsequent affirmative inaction on all three curative paths.

H.2 How Section H Supports the Primary and Secondary Theories¶

For Section E: The RATA form is evidence that Kozek, as of October 31, 2023, understood the Smith decision had been decided on grounds that were (in his own words) procedurally and legally defective. That understanding is directly relevant to whether the failure to supplement during the Dec 2022 - Sep 2023 window was a reasonable tactical choice or a breach of the standard of care. If Kozek believed on October 31, 2023 that the decision was substantively wrong, he necessarily believed on September 29, 2023 that the motion could have been decided differently. The question for the fact-finder becomes: why did he not attempt to change that outcome at the trial level while he had the opportunity?

For Section F: The RATA form is the principal evidence that the decision not to perfect was not a late-stage merits reassessment. Kozek's stated position on October 31, 2023 is that the decision was wrong. No documentary evidence shows that position changed. The failure to perfect is therefore most plausibly explained as inaction rather than a considered decision that the appeal lacked merit.

For Section G: The RATA form's content is itself the type of information that RPC 1.4 requires counsel to share with the client. Filing a document asserting the lower court was wrong is a significant event in the representation. The client's entitlement to know about that filing, to know the perfection schedule, and to know the dismissal is textbook RPC 1.4 territory. The RATA form, filed by Kozek, establishes the existence of the information that was not shared.

H.3 Use in Settlement or Trial¶

Section H is best deployed as a closing point in a deposition outline or a settlement demand letter. The structure is:

"You signed the Notice of Appeal on October 31, 2023, correct?"
"The RATA form states the decision was wrong because arguments were never raised in opposition, correct?"
"That was your professional assessment at that time, correct?"
"What steps did you take to place those arguments before the Appellate Term?"
"Did you file an appellate brief?"
"Did you inform Mr. Gray that you had filed the Notice of Appeal?"
"Did you inform Mr. Gray that the appeal had been dismissed?"

The internal contradiction is most forceful when the questions themselves draw out the sequence without prompting.

H.4 Evidence Sources¶

NYSCEF Doc #37 (Notice of Appeal and RATA form)
WT-117 Part G: Appeal Record

Implementation Strategy¶

Immediate Priority¶

Obtain Kozek engagement letter and file. The Kozek retainer scope must be confirmed before any theory is filed. Particular attention to (a) whether appellate work was within scope, (b) termination provisions, and (c) any conflict-related provisions.
Document formal termination status. The absence of a documented formal termination is a significant fact. Determine whether the representation is legally ongoing, whether an informal termination has occurred, or whether malpractice counsel should notify the firm of the representation's end before filing.
Preserve the Kozek Attorney Correspondence archive. The 729-page PDF is the documentary foundation for Section G and should be preserved in multiple locations with chain-of-custody documentation.
Retain malpractice counsel with NY housing-court and appellate experience. The primary theories require counsel who understands HP practice, motion-supplementation practice in Housing Court, and Appellate Term perfection requirements.

High Priority¶

Accrual and tolling analysis. While the SOL posture is not currently deadline-driven, counsel should formally document the accrual date for each theory and the continuous representation analysis before filing.
Expert witness engagement. A professional standards expert on New York housing court practice is required for Section E. An appellate practice expert is required for Section F. A legal ethics expert may be appropriate for Section G.
Complete billing ledger discovery. Obtain the full Ween & Kozek billing records and map them against the dates in WT-121 and WT-117.
Damages modeling. Engage a damages expert to separate Kozek-track damages from Sandercock-track damages and from underlying landlord damages, per Section C.4.

Filing Preparation¶

Coordination with B001 (Sandercock). Kozek and Sandercock theories are related but distinct; filing coordination is required to avoid causation conflicts and to ensure consistent positions on shared evidentiary foundations.
Coordination with the main case (SCC 506171/2021). The malpractice theories directly support the narrative that the HP proceeding never reached a merits adjudication on Paragraph 5 compliance. Counsel should ensure main-case filings are consistent with the malpractice framework.
Settlement demand structure. Both Sections E and F support substantial settlement leverage even before filing, particularly in combination with the RATA form contradiction in Section H.

Expert and Witness Requirements¶

Professional Standards Expert¶

A New York housing-court practitioner with motion-practice experience. Topics: (1) standard-of-care for successor counsel inheriting a briefed motion; (2) availability of supplemental affirmations in Housing Court practice; (3) reasonable review of inherited files for evidentiary gaps.

Appellate Practice Expert¶

A New York appellate practitioner with Appellate Term experience. Topics: (1) standard-of-care for appellate perfection practice; (2) reasonableness of failing to perfect after filing a Notice of Appeal with an affirmative merits statement; (3) availability and use of perfection extensions.

Legal Ethics Expert¶

A legal ethics consultant with experience in RPC 1.4 and attorney-client communication duties. Topics: (1) scope of the duty to inform; (2) how the duty applies to appellate-stage developments; (3) evidentiary weight of billing correspondence as a substitute for substantive communication (spoiler: none).

Fact Witnesses¶

Christian Gray (client): Direct testimony on the absence of appellate communication, the Sept 26, 2024 Checking In email, and his understanding of the case status throughout the representation.
Michael P. Kozek: Deposition on the RATA form, the decision not to supplement, the decision not to perfect, and communication practices.
Nina C. Oksman: Associate of record; likely to have direct knowledge of day-to-day handling of the matter.
Michael Busch (COO): Deposition on billing practices and the contrast between billing correspondence and substantive communication during the appellate window.
Margaret Sandercock: May be called as a professional-colleague witness on file-transfer content and what was handed over in November 2022.

Risk Assessment¶

Strength Indicators¶

Section F has the cleanest documentary causation of any theory in either B001 or B005. The Appellate Term dismissal order itself establishes procedural dismissal.
The RATA form is a rare piece of evidence that directly contradicts the principal defense to Section F (tactical decision not to perfect). Attorneys rarely file formal court documents asserting their position on the merits and then abandon it without explanation.
The dual-method Section G evidence foreclosure makes the communication-gap theory exceptionally difficult to rebut. A corpus-wide keyword sweep of the attorney's own correspondence file, combined with per-entry enumeration, eliminates the "you just missed one" defense.
The September 26, 2024 Checking In email is independent contemporaneous evidence of Christian's belief-state, eliminating the "the client knew" defense to Section G.
SOL posture is favorable: all theories are within statute even without continuous-representation tolling.

Principal Risks¶

Section E causation requires loss-of-chance argument. Whether Smith would have granted the motion on a complete record is an open question.
Section F damages require lost-chance argument. Whether the Appellate Term would have reversed on the RATA form argument is an open question.
Successor-counsel malpractice is harder to prosecute than original-counsel malpractice. Defense will argue the original deficiency was Sandercock's and that reasonable counsel could have declined to reopen a fully briefed motion.
Coordination risk with B001. The same Paragraph 5 evidence underlies both Sandercock's original evidentiary failure and Kozek's supplementation failure. Consistent damages theories are required.
Formal termination status is unclear. The absence of documented termination could complicate the pleading and service posture.

Mitigation¶

File Section F as the lead theory in settlement discussions even if Section E is the nominal primary theory in pleading -- Section F has the cleanest causation.
Use Section H in depositions to draw out the internal contradiction rather than arguing it in briefing.
Coordinate B001 and B005 damages calculations with a single damages expert to ensure consistency.
Obtain a declaratory statement of termination from Ween & Kozek (or failing that, from malpractice counsel to the firm) before filing to cleanly fix the accrual date.

Coordination with the Main Case¶

Evidence Overlap¶

The same Paragraph 5 compliance proof that underlies Sandercock's original motion failure (B001 Section E) underlies Kozek's supplementation failure (B005 Section E). The same NYSCEF filings (WT-117) and compliance timeline (WT-118) support both frameworks.

The WT-121 v1.2 documentary foundation for Section G is unique to the B005 framework and does not overlap with B001 directly.

Strategic Integration¶

The combined B001 and B005 frameworks support a narrative that the HP proceeding was undone at two distinct attorney stages, both of which left curable evidentiary gaps and neither of which produced a merits adjudication of Paragraph 5 compliance. This narrative directly supports SCC Cause of Action 2 (Breach of the Stipulation) by demonstrating that the breach was never determined because neither attorney placed the record before a court capable of deciding it.

For the Stipulation Release & Vacatur Strategy (see HP 6086 Counsel Package, Strategy document), the Kozek failures are relevant to the vacatur argument because a procedurally defective HP determination is more readily vacated than a determination reached on a complete record.

Cross-References¶

Within Orange Vol 12: - Orange Tab A000 -- Professional Malpractice Executive Overview - Orange Tab A001 -- Counsel Onboarding Quickstart - Orange Tab B001 -- Margaret Sandercock Attorney Malpractice Framework (parallel attorney framework) - Orange Tab B004 -- Malpractice Counsel Coordination Guide

White facts foundation (Vol 07): - WT-117 -- HP 6086/2020 NYSCEF Docket Analysis - WT-118 -- Stipulation Compliance Timeline Analysis - WT-121 -- Kozek HP 6086 Correspondence Timeline (v1.2 required for Section G anchor)

HP 6086 Counsel Package (Vol 00 Orientation): - Cover Note - Document A -- Record Posture / STIP Proof - Document B -- Reopening Motion Analysis Memo - Strategy -- HP Stipulation Release & Vacatur - Affidavit Preservation & Release Mitigation Analysis

Source documents: - Kozek_Attorney_Correspondence.pdf (729 pp): Primary source archive for Section G

END -- Orange Tab B005 Michael Kozek Attorney Malpractice Framework v1.2