T&V Constr., Inc. v Margolin; 2011 NY Slip Op 31598(U); June 3, 2011; Sup Ct, Nassau County
Docket Number: 0834/08 ;Judge: Anthony L. Parga demonstrates that no good deed goes unpunished.  In short, after getting divorced, plaintiff is told that his ex can’t pay the mortgage on the old marital home.  He has his own company purchase the mortgage and trades the mortgage payments for maintenance.  Later, ex wants to sell the house, so he buys it from her.  His attorney is tasked with the transaction, and especially with filing the deed.

The deed is not filed, and several years later ex sells the house to a third-party.  Now litigation begins, and the legal malpractice case commences.  "Plaintiffs argue in their opposition that "
but for" the defendants deed in lieu ‘  or take other steps to protect plaintiffs ‘ rights , Garcia could not have committed fraud in transferring the property to another. Plaintiffs also contend that Garcia fraud in reselling the premises was a foreseeable possibility and that Garcia s intentional break the causal nexus where the act could have been foreseen. (.f)ee s actions do not
of City of New York Bell v. Board of Educations 90 N.Y.2d 944 (1997))

Plaintiff argues, contrary to the defendants, that this is not a circumstance where subsequent counsel had a sufficient opportunity to protect plaintiffs ‘ rights or correct the prior counsel’ s errors, as the harm was already done at the time new counsel was retained and the new counsel could not prevent the injury itself. Lastly, plaintiffs submit that any judgment collected against Garcia would be uncollectible as she has  viable assets that are free from liens and/or judgments.

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment against T & V is denied as there are several questions of fact regarding whether the defendants’ negligence was a proximate cause of plaintiff T & V’s alleged damages.