DECISION & ORDER Defendants law firm and member thereof (collectively, the “Firm”) move (seq. no. 001) to dismiss this legal malpractice action brought by their former client, the plaintiff (“Ms. Karambelas”). The motion is opposed. This malpractice action arises out of the Firm’s representation of Ms. Karambelas during the latter portions of a divorce action titled Kaplan v. Karambelas (No. 401958/2013 [Sup Ct NY County]) which was ultimately abated upon the unfortunate event of Ms. Karambelas’ husband’s death. The Firm had been the fourth law firm hired by Ms. Karambelas to represent her in that divorce action. The Firm asserts on this motion that, since her husband died, Ms. Karambelas received a jointly owned Park Avenue apartment, appraised at $4.75 million in the divorce action. The Firm further asserts that Ms. Karambelas has also received $1.7 million in life insurance proceeds from her late husband’s policy. The summons and verified complaint in this action were filed January 21, 2019. The complaint alleges that the Firm was negligent in its representation of Ms. Karambelas in the divorce action by: (i) failing to pursue a motion to compel her husband to pay for her legal fees; (ii) failing to pursue a motion to compel her husband to pay maintenance and arrears; (iii) failing to pursue a motion to compel her husband to reinstate certain life insurance policies; and (iv) sabotaging a personal injury lawsuit commenced by Ms. Karambelas (Karambelas v. Equinox Holdings, Inc., No. 152632/2012 [Sup Ct NY County]) through, allegedly, not preventing her late husband from producing information to defense counsel in that lawsuit. The overarching gist of the motion rests on the Firm’s prediction concerning the future outcome of a pending Surrogate’s Court proceeding involving the probate of the late Mr. Kaplan’s estate (Matter of Estate of Peter M. Kaplan, a/k/a Peter Mark Kaplan, Peter C. Kaplan, and Peter Kaplan, No. 2018-3342/B [Surr Ct NY County]). The Firm asserts that the estate includes a residence in Water Mill, New York, appraised during the divorce action at $4.75 million, as well as jewelry and artwork valued in excess of $1 million. The Firm’s theory underlying this motion is, in large part, distilled in paragraph 8 of the moving affirmation of its counsel, who predicts that “Karambelas will ultimately receive [through the probate of the Kaplan Estate] substantially more than she would have received in the divorce action under the equitable distribution laws of the State of New York — so she nonetheless will receive all the money he allegedly would have been obligated to pay for legal fees and maintenance anyway — and much more” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 4 8). In fact, the Firm’s said factual prediction permeates its entire motion (see, NYSCEF Doc. No. 4
