Plaintiffs hired an attorney in order to purchase a condominium.  Unfortunately, the condo was subject to mold and water damage.  Razdolskaya v Lyubarsky  2018 NY Slip Op 02817
Decided on April 25, 2018  Appellate Division, Second Department starts out with an analysis of why there is a fraud claim.  It ends with an analysis of why the attorney may be subject to legal malpractice and whether he can seek to share the burden with the sellers.

“The plaintiff purchased a condominium unit from the defendants Roman Lyubarsky and Yelena Lyubarsky (hereinafter together the Lyubarskys). The plaintiff was represented by the defendant attorney Zorik Erik Ikhilov in connection with the sale. The plaintiff commenced this action against the Lyubarskys and Ikhilov after allegedly discovering that the condominium building required remediation for mold and water damage. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that the Lyubarskys actively concealed mold and water damage in the unit’s balcony, and assigned storage unit and parking space, and additionally concealed defective conditions throughout the common areas of the building. The plaintiff alleged Ikhilov committed legal malpractice in his representation of her in the transaction. In his answer, Ikhilov asserted cross claims against the Lyubarskys for contribution and common-law and contractual indemnification.”

“Here, accepting the facts alleged in the complaint as true and according the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference (see CPLR 3211[a][7]; Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88), the complaint sufficiently states a cause of action to recover damages for fraud on the theory that the Lyubarskys actively concealed defects throughout the common areas of the condominium building. The complaint alleges that the Lyubarskys took several steps to hide the existence of leaks and mold damage including, inter alia, claiming that they had lost the key to the storage area in the cellar which was assigned to the subject condominium, and removing and replacing damaged sheetrock from the cellar and the parking area. These allegations, if true, might have thwarted the plaintiff’s efforts to fulfill her responsibilities imposed by the doctrine of caveat emptor with respect to the common areas of the building (see Camisa v Papaleo, 93 AD3d 623, 625; Margolin v IM Kapco, Inc., 89 AD3d 690, 692; Jablonski v Rapalje, 14 AD3d 484, 487; see also Radushinsky v Itskovich, 127 AD3d at 839). Further, in support of that branch of their motion which sought dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1), the Lyubarskys failed to sustain their burden of submitting documentary evidence to resolve all factual issues as a matter of law, and conclusively dispose of the plaintiff’s fraud cause of action as it related to the common areas of the building (see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d at 87; Camisa v Papaleo, 93 AD3d at 625).

We also agree with the Supreme Court’s determination to deny that branch of the Lyubarskys’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss Ikhilov’s cross claim for contribution (see Schauer v Joyce, 54 NY2d 1, 5). A claim for contribution may be established, among other ways, where the party from whom contribution is sought owed a duty to the injured plaintiff, and a breach of this duty contributed to the plaintiff’s alleged injury (see Morris v Home Depot USA, 152 AD3d 669, 671-672; Phillips v Young Men’s Christian Assn., 215 AD2d 825, 827). An “essential requirement” for contribution is “that the parties must have contributed to the same injury” (Nassau Roofing & Sheet Metal Co. v Facilities Dev. Corp., 71 NY2d 599, 603). “[C]ontribution is available whether or not the culpable parties are allegedly liable for the injury under the same or different theories” (Raquet v Braun, 90 NY2d 177, 183 [internal quotation marks omitted]). Here, the Lyubarskys and Ikhilov are alleged to have caused the same injury to the plaintiff, i.e., the diminution in value of the plaintiff’s condominium unit and her interest in the common elements of the building as a result of the alleged mold and water damage. Under these circumstances, Ikhilov has stated a cause of action against the Lyubarskys to recover damages for contribution (see Schauer v Joyce, 54 NY2d at 5).”