Chicago Legal Malpractice Lawyer Blog
Adel Wine & Liquors, Inc. v. Randy’s 925 Corp., et al., 2026 NY Slip Op 31054(U) (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty., Mar. 19, 2026) (Frank, J.)
Plaintiff owned a liquor store. She signed an agreement with another party to sell the store. Later, plaintiff claimed that she did not understand what she had signed. She then attempted to sue the lawyers (Defendant Dunnington) who drafted the documents that she signed. It isn’t clear who the lawyers actually represented, but we can speculate that the Dunnington firm represented the buyer. They drafted an agreement for the sale of the business and the plaintiff signed. One part of her lawsuit to unwind the transaction was a claim for legal malpractice. The defendant law firm Dunnington, Bartholow & Miller LLP under CPLR § 3211(a)(1), (7), and (10) on the ground that they did not represent plaintiff.
Facts: Plaintiff Adel Wine & Liquors is owned by Adelaida Melendez, an elderly woman living in assisted living since 2022 whose sons had been operating the business. The complaint alleges that unknown visitors — later identified as attorney Swetnick (of Dunnington) and Gerard Glass — presented Melendez with documents without explaining their contents and had her sign them. She later claimed she believed the documents effected a lease when they actually effected a sale of the business and transfer of its liquor license.
Claims: Six causes of action total; only one — legal malpractice — was asserted against Dunnington. At oral argument, plaintiff’s counsel argued the complaint’s facts could also support a fraud claim against Dunnington even though not pleaded as such.
Holding/Reasoning:
- Fraud: The court found no factual basis for a fraud theory — the complaint itself alleged the visitors made nostatements about the documents’ contents, so there could be no misrepresentation to induce reliance, and no factual explanation for why Melendez believed the documents were a lease. Justifiable reliance is essential to fraud, and there was nothing to support it.
- Legal malpractice: Dismissed because it was undisputed that Dunnington never represented the plaintiff — no attorney-client relationship existed, which is a threshold requirement for a malpractice claim (citing Fed. Ins. Co. v. N. Am. Specialty Ins. Co., 47 AD3d 52, 59 [1st Dept 2007]).
- Because the pleading failed on the merits, the court didn’t reach Dunnington’s alternative documentary-evidence and necessary-party arguments.
Takeaway for malpractice work: This is a clean, citable authority for the proposition that a nonclient cannot maintain a legal malpractice claim absent privity/attorney-client relationship. This is useful if you’re drafting a motion to dismiss on that ground, or distinguishing it where an exception (e.g., near-privity, fraud, or third-party beneficiary theory) might apply.