ERIC D. SHAPIRO, APPELLANT, v. JOHN MCNEILL D/B/A MCNEILL REALTY AND PROPERTY
MANAGEMENT CO., DEFENDANT, LLOYD M. BLEECKER, RESPONDENT.
92 N.Y.2d 91, 699 N.E.2d 407, 677 N.Y.S.2d 48 (1998).
July 1, 1998
2 No. 101
(98 NY Int. 0088)
Decided July 1, 1998
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
_________________________________________________________________
Eugene L. Wishod, for appellant.
Diane K. Farrell, for respondent.
LEVINE, J.:
The plaintiff in this action, Dr. Edward Shapiro, seeks recovery of
monetary losses sustained in a fraudulent mortgage investment scheme
orchestrated by defendant John McNeill andnonparty David DeRosa.
DeRosa funneled some of the funds falsely procured from Shapiro
through the escrow account of defendant Lloyd Bleecker, DeRosa's
attorney. At issue in this appeal is whether attorney Bleecker, by
accepting and disbursing those funds, owed a duty of care to nonclient
Shapiro that was breached when Bleecker failed to consult Shapiro
before disposing of the funds.
Shapiro admittedly had no contact whatsoever, during the events
leading up to this action, with either Bleecker or DeRosa. His
association with the defendants arose entirely out of his relationship
with McNeill. Beginning in 1992, McNeill apprised Shapiro that, with
the financial advice of his accountant David DeRosa, he had created a
highly profitable real estate investment opportunity in which
individual investments were pooled and used to acquire and resell real
property mortgages. Relying on these representations, Shapiro gave
McNeill a check for $20,000, payable to McNeill, for investment in the
mortgage venture. Thereafter, McNeill convinced Shapiro to roll over
his investment and his alleged profit several times until, as of
August 1993, Shapiro believed that he had $50,000 outstanding in
investments.
McNeill next suggested that Shapiro contribute another $16,637.24, to
SNIPPETS:
ERIC D. SHAPIRO, APPELLANT, v. JOHN MCNEILL D/B/A MCNEILL REALTY AND PROPERTY
MANAGEMENT CO., DEFENDANT, LLOYD M. BLEECKER, RESPONDENT.
The plaintiff in this action, Dr. Edward Shapiro, seeks recovery of monetary losses sustained
DeRosa funneled some of the funds falsely procured from Shapiro through the escrow account of
At issue in this appeal is whether attorney Bleecker, by accepting and disbursing those
Shapiro made a check out for $50,000, once again to "Lloyd Bleecker as attorney" and, in the
Upon receipt from Shapiro, McNeill delivered each check to DeRosa who deposited it in a bank
According to Bleecker's uncontradicted averments, DeRosa characterized the deposits as
Bleecker disbursed the funds in accordance with the directions expressed by DeRosa in the
Supreme Court granted Bleecker's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint, and
He argues, nevertheless, that he is entitled to judgment under a tort theory of liability,
First, he claims that an actionable breach of legal duty occurred because Bleecker violated
Were we, however, to conclude that Bleecker's conduct was contrary to the standards set forth
ort or contract liability")).
Shapiro's argument that Leon v Martinez(supra), supports a contrary conclusion in this case
Unlike the instant matter, in Leon v Martinez, the defendant attorneys were on notice of a
Thus, neither DR 9 102, nor Leon v Martinez (supra), supports Shapiro's argument that
Shapiro's alternative theory of liability is that Bleecker had a common law duty of care,
|
