You are here: / / PLAINTIFF ALLEGED DEFENDANTS-ATTORNEYS DID NOT ADVISE IT OF AN AMENDMENT...
, , ,

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED DEFENDANTS-ATTORNEYS DID NOT ADVISE IT OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMMERCIAL LEASE WHICH EFFECTIVELY ELIMINATED THE OPTION FOR PLAINTIFF TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY FOR $11.4 MILLION IF THE LANDLORD RECEIVES A BONA FIDE PURCHASE OFFER; THE LANDLORD IN FACT RECEIVED SUCH AN OFFER AND PLAINITFF EXERCISED ITS OPTION, BUT PAID $14.5 MILLION (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants-attorneys’ motion for summary judgment in this legal malpractice action should not have been granted. Plaintiff alleged defendants-attorneys did not advise it of an amendment to the commercial lease. The lease included an option to purchase the property for $11.4 million. The amendment extinguished the option to purchase for $11.4 million upon purchase of the property. The landlord received a bona fide purchase offer and plaintiff exercised its option, but paid $14.5 million:

Defendants’ email attaching a marked-up copy of the relevant lease section does not establish as a matter of law that defendants advised plaintiff as to the meaning of the amendment, and the parties dispute the oral advice that was provided by defendants. … [T]he fact that plaintiff’s agent read the amendment does not establish as a matter of law that defendants were not negligent … . Any evidence that plaintiff’s agent, a sophisticated businessman, knew or should have known that the amendment was substantive despite defendants’ advice that it was “housekeeping” does not disprove defendants’ negligence but is evidence that can be offered in mitigation of damages … .

… The fact that plaintiff sent the signed lease to the landlord without defendants’ knowledge does not as a matter of law refute causation. Alrose Steinway, LLC v Jaspan Schlesinger, LLP, 2022 NY Slip Op 03310, First Dept 5-19-22

Purchase Point: Here the attorneys’ alleged failure to advise the plaintiff of the significance of an amendment to a commercial lease raised a question of fact in this legal malpractice action. The amendment eliminated plaintiff’s option to purchase the property for $11.4 million if the landlord received a bona fide purchase offer. The landlord received such an offer and plaintiff exercised its option to purchase, but paid $14.5 million.

 

You might also like
NO PROOF NOTE WAS IN POSSESSION OF PLAINTIFF WHEN THE ACTION WAS COMMENCED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 240(6) CAUSES OF ACTION, HEAVY MOTORIZED PALLET JACK SLID ON WATER ON A DESCENDING RAMP.
PLAINTIFF’S FALLING INTO A HOLE ON THE PREMISES AFTER HIS TRUCK WAS LOADED WAS NOT THE RESULT OF “USE” OF THE TRUCK WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INSURANCE POLICIES (FIRST DEPT).
SORA COURT MAY HAVE OVERASSESSED THE RISK IN A STATUTORY RAPE CASE, MATTER REMITTED FOR PROPER APPLICATION OF THE CRITERIA ANNOUNCED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS IN PEOPLE V GILLOTTI (FIRST DEPT).
DESTRUCTION (SPOLIATION) OF EVIDENCE WARRANTED STRIKING THE PLEADINGS.
DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER CONVICTION AFFIRMED; DURING A POLICE CHASE, DEFENDANT DROVE THE WRONG WAY ON A HIGHWAY AND CRASHED HEAD-ON INTO AN ONCOMING CAR (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT GAVE TWO STATEMENTS, ONE IN THE MORNING TO THE POLICE, ONE IN THE AFTERNOON TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY; THE FIRST STATEMENT WAS INDUCED BY MISINFORMATION ABOUT WHETHER THE STATEMENT COULD BE USED AGAINST THE DEFENDANT AND WAS SUPPRESSED BY THE MOTION COURT; THE SECOND STATEMENT, AND THE KNIFE AND DNA RECOVERED BASED UPON THE SECOND STATEMENT, SHOULD ALSO HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FIRST DEPT).
THE JURY WAS NOT INSTRUCTED THAT ACQUITTAL ON THE TOP COUNT BASED ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE REQUIRED ACQUITTAL ON THE LESSER COUNT; ALTHOUGH DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT OBJECT TO THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS, THE APPEAL WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

ALTHOUGH THE RELEVANT DECISION [PEOPLE VS RUDOLPH] CAME DOWN AFTER DEFENDANT... PETITIONER-INMATE WAS DENIED DUE PROCEES WHEN HE WAS NOT ALLOWED TO VIEW A VIDEO...