Real Estate commerce is a big time sport in New York, and in Manhattan might be considered a lifestyle unto itself.  The buying and selling of cooperative and condominium apartments goes on in an endless swirl, good or bad economic times notwithstanding.

One element of the purchase is an educated or studied prediction of future costs.  One may always expect an upward arc to maintenance or common charges; inflation is a constant pressure.  However, 14-142% increases are a nightmare.  That’s what happened in Hefter v Citi Habitats, Inc.; 2011 NY Slip Op 00733 ; Decided on February 8, 2011 ; Appellate Division, First Department . 
 

This was, at a minimum, the largest purchase that buyer made for a long time, perhaps the largest in his lifetime.  Why did he take the attorney recommended by the broker?  We don’t know, but he turned and sued the attorney for not advising buyer of potential increases.  However, it seems that attorney himself did not know, and no reasonable inquiry would have predicted actual future increases.  Thus case dismissed.

"Plaintiff’s allegations of legal malpractice against Nihamin, the attorney who represented him in the purchase of a cooperative apartment owned by the Greens, are conclusory and were properly dismissed. There is no allegation that Nihamin had notice of any facts which might reasonably have caused him to question the veracity of the managing agent’s response to a question about future maintenance increases. The "selection of one among several reasonable courses of action does not constitute malpractice" (Rosner v Paley, 65 NY2d 736, 738 [1985]), and plaintiff acknowledges that further inquiry by Nihamin would have been futile. Furthermore, plaintiff’s contention that Nihamin "had a potential conflict of interest" because he was recommended by the broker is, by itself, insufficient to state a claim for legal malpractice ."