Murray Warehouse, Inc. v. C. Louis AbeloveMurray Warehouse, Inc. v. C. Louis Abelove
Judgment unanimously reversed on the law without costs and new trial granted. Memorandum: Plaintiff sued defendant for legal malpractice in representing plaintiff in the sale of four parcels of real property and equipment to 135 Hotel Street Realty Corp., a
The jury verdict in favor of plaintiff must be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Defendant presented direct evidence that the parties agreed not to include parcel D in the mortgage because the purchaser desired to sell parcel D to fund improvements to the other three parcels. Defendant also established that the contract of sale required the Vogels to unconditionally and personally guarantee the second mortgage, which they did. Plaintiff presented no direct evidence to the contrary and instead relied solely upon the circumstantial evidence that Ben Movsh, president and a principal stockholder of plaintiff who was deceased at the time of trial, expressed surprise when he discovered that parcel D was sold and was not secured by the second mortgage. Plaintiff failed to establish, however, that Movsh directed defendant to include parcel D in the second mortgage. Accordingly, the jury verdict cannot be supported by any fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Petrovski v Fornes,