In legal malpractice, one may allege pecuniary loss only.  No emotional disturbance claims permitted.  No loss of enjoyment of life permitted.  However, this professional negligence claim was dismissed for  claiming pecuniary loss.  Lerner v Douglas Elliman Real Estate, Inc. , 2018 NY Slip Op 30280(U), February 15, 2018  Supreme Court, New York County  Docket Number: 154000/2013  Judge: Margaret A. Chan.    “Plaintiff seeks to recover damages she allegedly sustained from the sale of her residential condominium located at 200 East End Avenue, in the city, state, and county of New York, in December 2009, which was sold at a lesser price due to the
defendant brokers’ erroneous measurement of the unit. Defendants moved in motion sequence 002 (MS2) pursuant to CPLR 3212 to dismiss the Amended Complaint, but the action was marked off the calendar by order dated September 16, 2016, due to the suspension of plaintiffs attorney. Upon restoration of the action, defendants filed an amended notice of motion in motion sequence 003 (MS3) seeking the same relief. Plaintiff, by new counsel, opposes the motion and cross· moves to strike the note of issue, reopen discovery and leave to amend the Amended Complaint. ”

“In June 2009, plaintiff and her estranged _husband, Mark J. Lerner, who is not a party in this suit, was in the middle of divorce proceedings. On July 7, 2009, Mark Lerner, the listed owner of the apartment at 200 East End Ave, executed an exclusive real estate brokerage agreement with defendants to sell the apartment, which was the marital property, for $3,000,000 (MS2 – Pltfs Mot, Cole Aff, Exh D). Plaintiff remained in the apartment and her estranged husband was to pay the
maintenance. But, since Mark Lerner had not paid the maintenance, the Cooperative commenced eviction proceedings against plaintiff. The Cooperative and plaintiff settled the eviction matter with an agreement that plaintiff will have a contract of sale of the apartment by September 30, 2009 (MS3-Pltfs Cross-Motion, Lerner Aff at 7).

Defendants listed the apartment for sale, however, they described the apartment as having 2,471 square feet in size. In August or September 2009, plaintiff informed defendants that they had incorrectly measured the indoor square footage by 632 square feet, which diminished the 3, 103 square feet by 20%. Defendants hired an architect to remeasure the apartment on September 28, 2009 and corrected the description (id. at if 8; MS2 – Deft’s Mot, Teplitzky Aff at 8). ”

“Plaintiff asserts this negligence cause of action alleging only economic harm. As stated by the Court of Appeals, “[i]t is well settled that loss of a purely economic sort may not be compensated in a negligence . . . action.” (Schiavone Construction Co. v. Elgood Mayo Corp., 56 NY2d 667, [1982]; see Travelers Insurance Co v Ferco, Inc., 122 AD2d 718, 719 [1st Dept 1986]). Accordingly, plaintiffs first cause of action is dismissed.

Plaintiffs second cause of action is for punitive damages based on allegations of defendants’ intentional and reckless acts, along with the negligence allegations. Although plaintiff does not mention what acts warrant punitive damages, her claim essentially sounds in intentional infliction of economic harm, which New York does not recognize (see Meridian Capital Partners, Inc. v Fifth A venue 58159 Acquisition Co. LP, 60 AD3d 434, 434 [Ist Dept 2009]). Thus, plaintiffs second cause of action is dismissed. ”