It’s a well known meme that real estate is close to the heart of New Yorkers.   "Location, location, location" is a phrase bandied about even by schoolchildren.  So, it’s no surprise that real estate transactions may figure in a legal malpractice setting.  Here, in Rojas v Paine  2015 NY Slip Op 01258  Decided on February 11, 2015  Appellate Division, Second Department we see what happens when the attorney does not compare the description of a property in a deed with that of the property purported to be sold.

"In April 2005, the plaintiffs entered into a contract to purchase a one-family house in the Town of Greenburgh from the defendants Andrew Paine and Karen Paine (hereinafter together the Paines). The house was situated on property designated as Lot No. 8 on a subdivision map filed in the Westchester County Clerk’s office. The plaintiffs were represented in the transaction by the defendants Paul Herrick and Rabin, Panero & Herrick, LLP (hereinafter together the Herrick defendants). The Herrick defendants ordered a title report from the defendant Statewide Abstract Corp. (hereinafter Statewide). The title report was issued by Statewide as agent for the defendant Stewart Title Insurance Company (hereinafter Stewart Title), which issued a policy of title insurance.

At the closing on June 6, 2005, the Paines delivered to the plaintiffs a bargain and sale deed reciting that the subject property was "the same property" as had been transferred to the Paines by two separate deeds, both recorded in the Westchester County Clerk’s office on March 4, 2005. However, the description of the property contained in Schedule A of the deed delivered on June 6, 2005, which had also been annexed to the contract of sale, contained only the description of the [*2]portion of Lot No. 8 set forth in one of the two deeds previously recorded on March 4, 2005.

In the fall of 2007, when the plaintiffs sought to sell the property to a relocation company, a title search revealed that the plaintiffs owned only a portion of Lot No. 8. As a result, the relocation company refused to take title to the property. Thereafter, the plaintiffs commenced this action against several parties. With respect to the Herrick defendants, the plaintiffs alleged that they were negligent in failing to discover that the property had been illegally subdivided, permitting the delivery of the deed to only a portion of the parcel, and failing to discover the existence of the remaining parcel. In an order entered September 30, 2011, the Supreme Court, inter alia, denied the cross motion of the Herrick defendants for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, and the case proceeded to trial. Following the trial, a judgment dated June 12, 2013, was entered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the Herrick defendants in the total sum of $349,247.47."

"ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, with one bill of costs to the plaintiffs."