After Sarah Stackpole purchased a cooperative apartment to use as a medical office, she learned that the unit couldn't be legally used as a professional space and sued the law firm that represented her in connection with the purchase. (Stackpole claimed her lawyers didn't inform her of the applicable restrictions and that she incurred costs to have the unit legalized for the intended purposes.)
After the New York County Supreme Court dismissed her case, Stackpole appealed to the Appellate Division, First Department, which affirmed the outcome based on the lower court's "credibility determinations."
Apparently, Stackpole couldn't prove that her lawyers failed to inform her of the unit's professional-use restrictions. And even if the firm didn't advise her of the problems, Stackpole didn't establish--to the court's satisfaction--that she wouldn't have purchased the unit had the then-existing limitations been flagged. (Apparently, Stackpole was familiar with the "horrors" of converting a residential apartment to professional use.)
Were the cards stacked against Stackpole?
To view a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: Sarah Stackpole, M.D. v. Cohen, Ehrlich & Frankel, LLP