Such is one of the allegations in Chiantella v Kroll, 2011 NY Slip Op 32140(U); July 19, 2011; Sup Ct, Nassau County, which was recently decided by Justice Brown.  The fact pattern suggests that what is discussed is simply the tip of the otherwise submerged iceburg.  How this situation arise is not fathomable.  Here are the facts:

"In this legal malpractice action, the plaintiff seeks to recover damages allegedly caused by the defendant attorneys ‘ negligence and mishandling in representing him with respect to his mother s Trust and Estate. The plaintiffs mother Lucy Chiantella created the Lucy Chiantella Revocable Trust on November 6, 2002. Bernard Vishnick and Lucy Chiantella were Co-Trustees and John Gavros
was named Successor Co-Trustee in the event that Vishnick or Chiantella ceased to serve.
Pursuant to the Trust, the plaintiff was to receive the monthly payments of principal and interest
on mortgages and notes held by the Trust immediately upon the Trust’s receipt thereof and the
Trust’ s income was to be distributed to him at least anually. The Trust provided that if the
plaintiff survived his mother, one-third of the Trust’ s assets would be paid to him at her death
one-half of the remaining Trust assets would be paid to him on the third anniversary of her death and the remainder of the Trust assets would be paid to him on the seventh anniversary of her
death. In the event that the plaintiff died without issue before all of the assets were distributed
the Trust balance was to be paid to various religious entities. The plaintiffs mother also made a
will which devised all of her residuary estate to the Trust. The plaintiff was the sole named
legatee. The plaintiff and Vishnick were Co-Executors of the Estate.

The plaintiffs mother died on April 14 , 2003.  Shortly thereafter, conflict regarding Vishnick’ s handling of the Estate developed. When faced with Vishnick’ s attempt to evict him from his lifelong home at his mother s Little Neck property, which had devolved to the Trust at her death, the plaintiff sought removal of Vishnick as Trustee and Co-Executor via prior counsel. When that attorney was discharged, the plaintiff retained the defendants via a retainer agreement dated May 14 2004. The retainer agreement provided that the defendants were retained to represent the plaintiff "in connection with the Estate of his mother and matters related thereto. " The plaintiff alleges that via the retainer agreement, he retained the defendants to represent him both as a beneficiary of the Trust and Estate and in his capacity of Co-Executor of the Estate. Ultimately, the plaintiff, represented by the defendant Martin Kroll of Kroll, Moss & Kroll, executed a Stipulation of Settlement on June , 2004 which provided that he was purchasing the Little Neck property which was owned by the Trust for $475 000. , towards which he was receiving a credit of$101 300. 36 as part of his initial Trust distribution; that the balance was to be paid to the Trust via a purchase money mortgage with six percent interest which balance including principal and interest was due on the seventh anniversary of his mother s death; and, that the plaintiff would procure life insurance
benefits of $375 000. 00 payable to the Trust. Via that Settlement, as part of his initial Trust
distribution, the plaintiff also acquired his mother s Rocky Point property which was valued at
$117 500. 00 and had also devolved to the Trust at her death

So, we are left to wonder why plaintiff bought a house that was his already, and why he took out a mortgage on money that was his already?

Lessons:  A party seeking leave to amend his/her complaint bears the burden of demonstrating that the proposed amendments are not palpably insuffcient or patently devoid of merit. See Zeleznik v MST Const.. Inc , 50 AD3d 1024 (2 Dept. 2008). "Although leave to amend should be freely given in the absence of prejudice or surprise to the opposing part (see CPLR 3025(b)), the
motion should be denied where the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently
devoid of merit." Ferrandino & Son. Inc. v Wheaton Builder. Inc.. LLC, 82 AD3d 1035 (2
Dept. 2011), citing Scofield v DeGroodt, 54 AD3d 1017, 1018 (2 Dept. 2008); Lucido v
Mancuso, 49 AD3d 220, 227 (2 Dept. 2008). Legal malpractice may be predicated on an
il-advised settlement agreement. Steven L. Levitt & Associates. P. C. v Balkin, 54 AD3d 403
Dept. 2008); Fusco v Fauci, 299 AD2d 263 (1 sl Dept. 2002).