If the underlying transactions and relationships are confusing, try to figure out who did what in this legal malpractice case.  Was Nahzi a borrower or a lender?  Did anyone pay $ 90,000 for a $500,000 stake in a parking lot?  Why is the accountant so angry?  How come no one defended the motion to dismiss?  How did a party allow his name to be changed to Nazi in a contract ?

Lieblich v Pruzan   2012 NY Slip Op 31140(U)   April 28, 2012  Sup Ct, NY County
Docket Number: 104523/11  Judge: Paul G. Feinman is worth reading just to try to figure out who did what to whom. 

"Pruzen, an attorney, was retained in 2006 by plaintiffs to represent them in, amongst other things, a litigation entitled Nahzi v Liebllch, Index No, 112000/06, brought in this court (underlying action). Biberaj was not a party in the underlying action. Fron Nahzi (Nahzi), plaintiff in the underlying action, sued Lieblich over his claimed ownership interest in a company
called Lot 1555 COT. (Lot), a company that had been formed to purchase real property located at
1555 Bruckner Boulevard in the Bronx (property). ,Nahzi claimed that he had been deprived of
his rightful 25% share in Lot when the property was sold. Nahzi claims to have paid $90,000 for
his interest in Lot. The remaining 75% was owned by Licblich. Biberaj was not a shareholder in
Lot.
The arrangement between Nahzi and Lieblich as to their ownership in Lot is manifest in a Shareholders Agreement (Motion, Ex. 4)(Shareholder’s Agreement), in which Nahzi (identified
therein as Nazi’) is accorded 50 out of 200 shares’in Lot, in exchange for a capital expenditure of
$90,000.

Plaintiffs now claim that Pruzan committed malpractice when he failed to interpose a defense in the underlying action of “no consideration,’’ establishing that Nahzi had never paid for his interest in Lot. Plaintiffs argue that Pruzan failed to conduct discovery which would have revealed evidence raising questions of fact as to Nahzi’s interest in Lot, and his purchase of the cooperative apartment. Specifically, plaintiffs point to evidence elicited in a second underlying action, Lot 155
Corp v Nahzi, Index No. 10 1973/09 (second underlying action), in which plaintiffs sought to recover the $165,000 loan allegedly made to Nahzi. In that action, plaintiffs obtained affidavits from the seller of the cooperative apartment, Daniel Perla (Perla), and Nahzi’s accountant, Ronald Eletto (Eletto), which allegedly provide evidence that Nahzi paid no consideration for his interest in Lot, or that he surrendered any interest he might have had in Lot in exchange for the purchase of the cooperative apartment.

The complaint also raises allegations that Pruzan committed malpractice by, in the underlying action, failing to seek a recovery of various “Co+orate Expenses” allegedly owed by Nahzi. Complaint, 7 27. Plaintiffs never attempt to defend Pruzan’s motion to dismiss this  claim,
and it is dismissed.

Eletto was Nahzi’s personal income tax preparer until 2005. The affidavit of Eletto is a puzzlingly vituperative diatribe against his ex-client, replete with bold and underlined passages emphasizing Eletto’s manifest animus towards Nahzi.’ In his affidavit, Eletto remarked on an affidavit by Nahzi submitted in a preceding action, to the effect that Nahzi borrowed the $165,000 from Bibcraj to purchase the cooperative apartment, and that, prior to the loan, Biberaj was indebted to Nahzi in excess of that amount for unpaid commissions from the sale of real estate and other loans. Elctto opines that these statements are “materially false and-or otherwise misleading” (Aff. of Eletto, at 3) because Nahzi had never told him about any earned commissions; that Nahzi worked for Biberaj; or was owed, or loaned money to, Biberaj. Eletto insists that he would have known these things, and, that if these statements were true “Nahzi should have reported that transaction as income to him for the year 2001, which he did not.” Id. at 4. Eletto goes so far as to suggest that failure on Nahzi’s part to report a commission earned by him “could be considered tax evasion.” Id. Eletto
enthusiastically offers to reveal his client’s personal tax returns, if so subpoenaed.