Lisa A. Serradilla, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v.Lords Corporation, et al., Defendants, Ronald Vargo, et al., Defendants-Appellants.

SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT

2008 NY Slip Op 3092; 2008 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3037

April 8, 2008, Decided
April 8, 2008, Entered

This case involves plaintiffs who wanted to purchase a former SRO hotel and convert it to a single family home. They found out after closing that the City had issued vacate orders which prevented plaintiffs from doing the conversion. They successfully avoided dismissal against the architect and the attorney, but lost against the city. “Concerning the cause of action against the attorney for legal malpractice alleging, inter alia, his failure to advise plaintiffs of the need for a certificate of no harassment, the attorney failed to meet his initial burden of coming forward with evidence establishing, inter alia, that his only obligation to plaintiffs was to ensure that marketable title was transferred at closing and that the requisite standard of care did not require that he advise plaintiffs, prior to closing, of the need for a certificate of no harassment.”

Thomas E. Erdman, et al., respondents, v Joseph G. Dell, et al., appellants. (Index No. 11303/05)

SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT

2008 NY Slip Op 2959; 2008 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2933

April 1, 2008, Decided

Plaintiffs obtained summary judgment against attorneys, which was reversed. However, the case goes on.

“The Supreme Court incorrectly [**2] found at this point in the action that the plaintiff Thomas E. Erdman would have succeeded on his cause of action to recover damages pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1) but for the defendants’ failure to sue the general contractor before the statute of limitations expired. Issues of fact exist as to whether the scaffold from which Erdman fell provided proper protection and whether his failure to lock the wheels underneath the scaffold was the proximate cause of the accident”

Marc Edme, respondent, v Richard Tanenbaum, appellant, et al., defendants. (Index No. 29870/06)

2007-02921

SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT

2008 NY Slip Op 2956; 2008 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2944

April 1, 2008, Decided

Plaintiffs and attorney defendant had an arrangement for sums of money to be put aside and used to pay monthly mortgage obligations. Something went wrong, and plaintiffs were in default on the mortgage.

Plaintiffs won the motion to dismiss, and the case continues. “Contrary to the contention of the defendant Richard Tanenbaum, the documentary evidence that he submitted in support of his motion did not conclusively refute the plaintiff’s allegations of legal malpractice against him so as to warrant dismissal of the action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) insofar as asserted against him. Rather, those documents suggested that at least some of the funds at issue were supposed to be set aside to pay the plaintiff’s [**2] monthly mortgage obligation, and Tanenbaum’s evidence failed to address the plaintiff’s allegations that he neglected to set up and maintain an escrow account for those funds, thereby facilitating the default on the mortgage