This story of a likely ponzi scheme in the investments field took place between family members.  Plaintiff gave his in-law $ 295,000 to invest.  When he became troubled by the lack of documentation, he demanded his money back.  A transfer of $ 250,000 (he took a real loss) came to him.  Trouble came with the transfer, however.

Shortly thereafter, a stranger came to him and told him that the transfer was taken out of his account, and that he wanted the money back.  Plaintiff calls in-law who says that everything will be taken care of.  6 years goes by, and suddenly stranger sues plaintiff, and wins.

Plaintiff then turns to his attorney, and asks, why didn’t you sue my in-law?  Litigation ensues and motions for summary judgment are made and decided in Lovino, Inc. v Lavallee Law Offices
2010 NY Slip Op 33046(U);Supreme Court, Nassau County;Judge: Thomas Feinman who determined that there continued to be questions of fact.  Plaintiff says that he told the attorneys to sue the in-law.  The attorneys say that plaintiff told them to hold off suing the in-law until he finally changed his mind 5 days prior to trial.
 

"Thus where the existence of an issue of fact is even arguable or debatable, summary judgment should be denied.  Stone v. Goodson, 200 NYS2d 627."