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
A SUPPRESSION MOTION CANNOT BE DENIED ON A GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE PEOPLE (FIRST DEPT).
AFTER FINDING SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE BY DEFENDANTS, THE JUDGE FASHIONED AN ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION TO BE GIVEN AT TRIAL; THE CHARGE IMPROPERLY REQUIRED, RATHER THAN PERMITTED, THE JURY TO FIND SPOLIATION; THE JUDGE WAS ORDERED TO REVISE THE CHARGE (FIRST DEPT).
Temporary Maintenance Award Not Waived by Prenuptial Agreement Waiving Only the Final Award of Alimony or Maintenance
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION REGULATING PROTESTS BY ANIMAL RIGHTS ADVOCATES AGAINST A CENTRAL PARK HORSE-DRAWN CARRIAGE SIGHTSEEING BUSINESS UPHELD, BUFFER ZONE PROVISION MODIFIED TO COMPORT WITH FIRST AMENDMENT (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE RAISED A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR THE COLLISION; PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). ​
Growling and Baring Teeth Insufficient to Raise Question of Fact About a Dog’s Vicious Propensities
A Misrepresentation Which Is the Subject of a Provision in a Contract May Be the Basis for a Distinct Fraud Cause of Action Which Is Not Duplicative of the Breach of Contract Cause of Action
PLANTIFF ALLEGED FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE CANCER IN 2014 IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION; DESPITE THE ENACTMENT OF LAVERN’S LAW (CPLR 214-A) IN 2018, WHICH EXTENDED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE CANCER BY VIRTUE OF ITS RETROACTIVE-APPLICATION AND REVIVAL PROVISIONS, THE ACTION WAS TIME-BARRED (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 © 2026 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...