LANDLORD'S LAWYER SUED BY EVICTED TENANT

After an eviction in Housing Court and NYC Marshall, the tenant sued the landlord's counsel for damages ("On the summons application form annexed to the complaint, Plaintiff wrote that Defendant violated the "rules that govern the courts, unlawful eviction, fraudulent petition holdover, fraudulent deed, theft of property, destruction of property." With regards to the property damage claim, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant "stole his property and used an ax and bar bell to destroy the entire house." As to the fraud claim, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant submitted fraudulent evidence to the Housing Court in the summary proceeding, that a lease was never produced in the Housing Court matter and that the deed transferring the property to landlord...was fraudulent.")

Moore v Balsamo & Rosenblatt PC, 2019 NY Slip Op 51480(U), Decided on September 16, 2019, Civil Court Of The City Of New York, Kings County, Mallafre-Melendez, J:

"Upon review of the submissions and oral argument, the court finds that Defendant sustained its prima facie burden for summary judgment and that Plaintiff has not established proof in evidentiary form that a triable issue of fact exists (see Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). It has long been recognized that "[t]he public interest . . . demands that attorneys, in the exercise of their proper functions as such, shall not be civilly liable for their acts when performed in good faith and for the honest purpose of protecting the interests of their clients" (Hahn v. Wylie, 54 AD2d 629 [1st Dept. 1976]). "Absent a showing of fraud or collusion, or of a malicious or tortious act, an attorney is not liable to third parties for purported injuries caused by services performed on behalf of a client or advice offered to that client" (Levine v. Graphic Scanning Corp., 87 AD2d 755 [2d Dept. 1982]; Hahn v. Wylie, 54 AD2d 629; Burger v. Brookhaven Medical Arts Bldg., Inc., 131 AD2d 622 [2d Dept. 1987]). Here, Plaintiff's allegation regarding fraudulent documentation was previously adjudicated by Judge McClenahan. Judge McClenahan clearly held that the allegations of fraud on the part of the landlord were not supported in fact. The claim against Defendant herein rests on the very documents that were presented to Judge McClenahan which were admitted into evidence and formed the basis for the Housing Court's Decision/Order. The decision of Judge McClenahan is law of the case. This court is not an appellate court and cannot and will not disturb the findings of another trial judge.

As to the claim of property damage, the court finds that Plaintiff's allegations are baseless as there is no evidence that Defendant ever came into contact with Plaintiff's property. Defendant merely represented the landlord. Even if this court should assume Plaintiff's property was damaged, liability would not rest on the landlord, much less the landlord's attorneys. As a matter of law, the landlord cannot be liable for any claimed property damage (see generally Sialeu v. New York City Housing Authority, 124 AD3d 623 [2d Dept. 2015]). In an eviction that is carried pursuant to a lawfully issued warrant, a landlord, is not liable to a tenant for any damage caused by the marshal (Funding Assistance Corp. v. Mashreq Bank, 277 AD2d 127, 127 [2000]; see Campbell v. Maslin, 91 AD2d 559 [1982], affd 59 NY2d 722 [1983]; Foxworth v. Tjutjulis, 15 Misc 3d 129[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 50606[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]; see also Ide v. Finn, 196 AD3d 304 [1st Dept. 1921]; Slepoy v. Kliger, 26 Misc 3d 126[A] [App Term, 2d Dept., 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]). Pursuant to the May 15, 2018 Housing Court Decision/Order, a lawful warrant of eviction was issued. Therefore, as a matter of law, liability for property damage cannot rest on the landlord or the attorneys for the landlord as is claimed herein."