Groisman v. Goldberg & Rimberg PLLC

OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Daniel Groisman brings this legal malpractice action against his former attorneys, Defendants Goldberg & Rimberg PLLC and Israel Goldberg (together, “Goldberg”). Goldberg has now moved to dismiss Groisman’s complaint for failure to state a cognizable claim to relief or, barring dismissal, to stay this case pending the conclusion of a related case that is currently proceeding in the Eastern District of New York. (Dkt. No. 14.) For the reasons that follow, Goldberg’s motion to dismiss is denied and its motion to stay is granted.I. BackgroundThe Court draws its recitation of the case’s factual background from the allegations in the complaint, all of which are assumed to be true for purposes of resolving Goldberg’s motion to dismiss. See Bryant v. N.Y. State Educ. Dep’t, 692 F.3d 202, 210 (2d Cir. 2012).In the summer of 2011, an individual named Joseph Feller persuaded Plaintiff Daniel Groisman to invest in a plan to acquire and develop a property located in Brooklyn. (Dkt. No. 1 (“Compl.”)

8, 12.) Pursuant to his agreement with Feller, Groisman wired $3,000,000 into a trust account under the direction of Feller’s chosen attorney, Jeffrey Zwick. (Compl.