A case before Justice Cahn in Supreme Court, New York County, reported today in the NYLJ continues after an unsuccessful summary judgment decision. “DEFENDANT LAW firm moved for summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim, including legal malpractice, arguing it neither knew of nor represented the parties in the transaction involving Voluto and plaintiff’s independent actions constituted an intervening cause. Plaintiff alleged defendant committed malpractice by failing to advise her of the risk of pursuing the purchase of a mortgage lien and by failing to advise her of the impending sale of the subject real estate to a third party after defendant extended the owner’s time to find a buyer, which prevented plaintiff from buying the property. The court found questions of fact existed as to the impact defendant’s parallel strategy for purchasing the mortgage may have had on the negotiations for plaintiff’s purchase of the Chelsea Mansions. It noted whether defendant’s entering into a stipulation extending the owner’s time to find a buyer for the property prevented plaintiff from buying it, and if so, whether such extension was malpractice, was an issue of fact and law, denying defendant summary judgment on the malpractice claim.”