Empire Purveyors, Inc. v Brief Justice Carmen & Kleiman, LLP; 2011 NY Slip Op 31420(U)
May 31, 2011; Sup Ct, NY County; Docket Number: 110909/08; Judge: Jane S. Solomon presents a horrifying view of how clients sometimes fare at the hands of attorneys, especially attorneys who move from firm to firm.  From the decision:

"Cook admitted the following at his deposition. On or about October 3, 2003, Empire retained the Firm to assist it in recovering the balance allegedly due on two promissory notes signed by Eileen Weinberg, the defendant in the underlying case. The notes guaranteed repayment of two loans, one in the amount of $40,000, and the other in the amount of $80,000, t h a t the late Mr. P i n t o had extended to Ms. Weinberg. The matter was assigned to Cook, who at that time was an associate at the Firm. In approximately November 2005, Cook left the Firm and joined Windels Marx. From some time in October 2003 through October 2005, Cook falsely, and repeatedly, represented to plaintiffs that he had commenced an action and had obtained a judgment
against Ms. Weinberg, and that he was engaged in discovery and enforcement proceedings to collect on that judgment. So as to provide "corroborative detail intended to give artistic
verisimilitude" to his fabrication (Gilbert and Sullivan, The Mikado, Act 2), Cook presented the Pintos with a purported subpoena duces tecum to take the deposition of Ms. Weinberg, as a
judgment debtor, as well as a notice of motion seeking sanctions for contempt, and other fake documents. In fact, Cook had lost the promissory notes signed by Ms. Weinberg, which plaintiffs had given to the Firm, and he had not commenced any action on behalf of Empi-re. Indeed, he did not even purchase an index number. He now seeks to escape liability f o r his negligence, and for his lies, by arguing that: (i) the plaintiffs other than Empire have no claim; (11) plaintiffs suffered no damages; (iii) plaintiffs’ successor counsel had sufficient opportunity to protect their rights; and (iv) plaintiffs’ claims are barred by collateral estoppel and by judicial estoppel."

Defendant loses summary judgment motion and the case continues with some of the plaintiffs.