From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Reynolds v. Kadanoff and Haussman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 21, 1995
218 A.D.2d 732 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

August 21, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the complaint is reinstated.

The plaintiff purchased real property owned by his judgment debtor at a Sheriff's execution sale in August 1982. The defendant attorneys represented the plaintiff in the action to recover the debt, issued a property execution to the Sheriff, and attended the Sheriff's sale with the plaintiff. However, the Sheriff's deed conveying the property to the plaintiff was never recorded. The judgment debtor subsequently sold the property to third parties, whose deed was recorded in September 1982. At the closing, some of the sale proceeds were placed in escrow by the title company to satisfy the plaintiff's money judgment.

The plaintiff commenced the instant legal malpractice action against the defendants, contending, inter alia, that they were negligent in failing to promptly record the Sheriff's deed. He sought damages based on the value of the property. The plaintiff also commenced a fraudulent conveyance action against the judgment debtor and third-party purchasers, which was dismissed in 1988 (see, Reynolds v. Springer Serv. Sta., 151 A.D.2d 466). After the action was dismissed, the plaintiff received the funds which had been held in escrow to satisfy the money judgment.

In August 1993, the court dismissed the instant action based on the parties' statements placed on the record before the presentment of evidence. We conclude that this was error, as the allegations in the complaint, which must be accepted as true for this purpose, were sufficient to state a cause of action (see generally, De Vito v. Katsch, 157 A.D.2d 413). We agree with the plaintiff's contention that he may seek to recover damages based on the value of the real property which he allegedly lost due to the defendants' negligence, and that his receipt of the funds from the title company merely mitigated his damages. Miller, J.P., O'Brien, Ritter and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Reynolds v. Kadanoff and Haussman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 21, 1995
218 A.D.2d 732 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Reynolds v. Kadanoff and Haussman

Case Details

Full title:JAMES REYNOLDS, Appellant, v. KADANOFF AND HAUSSMAN, P.C., et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Aug 21, 1995

Citations

218 A.D.2d 732 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
630 N.Y.S.2d 388

Citing Cases

Reynolds v. Kadanoff Haussman, P. C

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs. The facts underlying this action were presented in a prior…

Barbara King Family Tr. v. Voluto Vent. LLC

Plaintiff's damages, based on the current value of the property, are recoverable in an action for legal…