Some of the defendants ended up in Federal prison, and some ended up being sued.  Plaintiff ended up owing on a mortgage and not owning the house.  It’s all fallout of the mortgage crisis and now will go to trial.  Defendant attorney Dash was suspended for 5 years and the AD found that he co mingled his IOLA funds and aided a suspended attorney in the practice of law.

It’s a mess.  Weston v 35 Plank Rd Realty Corp.  2013 NY Slip Op 31417(U)  July 2, 2013
Supreme Court, Richmond County  Docket Number: 104141/08  Judge: Joseph J. Maltese  "In this case the plaintiff was purportedly approached by Simon to help prevent a bank from foreclosing on property owned by the defendant Doud Elder. The plaintiff states that she never had any dealings with Doud Elder. In connection with this transaction, the plaintiff was found to qualify for a mortgage. Once it was determined that the plaintiff could qualify for a home loan, Home Savers promised payment in the amount of $10,000 to the plaintiff for her participation. According to the plaintiff she would obtain a mortgage for the purchase of Doud Elder’s home at 35 Plank Road, Staten Island, New York. Thereafter, pursuant to a side agreement executed at the closing Home Savers or Elder would make the mortgage payments.

The home closing took place on February 3, 2006. The defendant, Argent Mortgage Company, LLC, (“Argent”) provided and recorded a mortgage on the property. However, the defendant Reliant Abstract & Settlement Corp., failed to record the deed transferring 35 Plank Road, Staten Island, New York from Doud Elder to Lisa Weston. While Argent issued a mortgage in the name of Lisa Weston, not one payments has been made on that account. As a result of the foregoing facts, Lisa Weston remains financially obligated on the mortgage, but does not have a recorded ownership in the property. Consequently, Doud Elder continues to reside in the premises and not pay a mortgage. Furthermore, without being a record owner of the property, Weston is unable to evict Elder from the premises.

The Dash Defendants do not dispute that a fiduciary duty existed with the plaintiff. Instead, the Dash Defendants argue that plaintiff has not provided any evidence that constitute a breach of fiduciary duty. A breach of fiduciary duty arises from the violation of a relationship of trust and confidence.6 Here, Dash’s own testimony causes doubt as to whether he fully prepared  to conduct the real estate closing at issue here. Consequently, this cause of action must stand. The plaintiff’s nineteenth cause of action for legal malpractice requires a showing that the defendant attorney failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and establish that the defendant attorney failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession, and that the attorney’s breach of that duty proximately caused the plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages.7 Once again, the statements of Jan Dash during his deposition raise a question as to whether he properly conducted the real estate closing. Consequently, this cause of action must stand."