The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 57, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 82 were read on this motion to/for SUMMARY JUDGMENT(AFTER JOINDER. DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION In this action for legal malpractice, defendant Kenneth B. Hawco, Esq. (“Hawco” or “defendant”) moves for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff Marjorie Spiegel’s (“Spiegel” or “plaintiff”) complaint and plaintiffs affirmative defenses asserted in reply to Hawco’s counterclaims (Motion Sequence No. 003).1 Plaintiff opposes the motion.2 Defendant has withdrawn that portion of his motion seeking summary judgment based on lack of personal jurisdiction (tr of oral argument, dated 3/25/21 at 9-10 [NYSCEF Doc. No. 82]).3 BACKGROUND FACTS Plaintiff alleges that in or about August 2012, plaintiff and Hawco entered into a retainer agreement (the “Retainer Agreement”) in connection with representing her in a pending non-payment summary landlord/tenant proceeding in Housing Court entitled 49 Grove Realty, LLC v. Marjorie Spiegel (Housing Court Index No. 62309/12) relating to plaintiffs rent stabilized tenancy at 49 Grove Street, Apt 3 F, New York, New York 10012 (the “Apartment”) (the “Housing Court Proceeding”) (Verified Complaint ["Complaint"]) at
5-8 [NYSCEF Doc. No. 001]; Retainer Agreement, executed by plaintiff on August 13, 2012 and by Hawco on August 14, 2012 [NYSCEF Doc. No. 77]). On September 28, 2012, the parties entered into a handwritten two attorney stipulation, settling the Housing Court Proceeding (NYSCEF Doc. No. 46) (the “Stipulation”). The Stipulation provided: “1. In lieu of trial Respondent [plaintiff Spiegel herein] consents to a Final Judgment of possession & a Warrant to issue forthwith. Execution is stayed to 12/31/12. 2. Time is of the essence. This Agreement is for possession only. 3. Respondent does not have to pay any rent or use and occupancy to 12/31/12 the vacate date. In consideration of this Agreement, all rent arrears are waived. 4. All of Respondent’s Supreme Court claims remain in full force and effect. This Stipulation does not affect either sides rights, claims & defenses in the Supreme Court action. 5. Respondent withdraws without prejudice all claims in this proceeding. Petitioner [49 Grove Realty LLC] preserves all defenses. 6. Petitioner will deposit $60,000.00 in its attorney’s escrow account within 10 days. The $60,000.00 is the buyout amount. 7. $10,000.00 can be released directly to Respondent for moving expenses etc. upon three business days request by Respondent to Petitioner’s attorneys. The balance of $50,000.00 to be paid to Respondent directly upon surrender of keys and vacant [sic] possession of Apt 3F, 49 Grove St., NY NY.” There is language scribbled on the side of the Stipulation which is illegible. During oral argument on the within motion, plaintiff’s counsel represented that the scribbled language provides “counsel represented, Attorney Ween, if he consents, will withdraw 63783-09″ (referring to a holdover proceeding) (tr of Oral Argument, dated March 23, 2021 ["tr of oral argument"] at 25-26 [NYSCEF Doc. No. 82]). The Stipulation is signed by Hawco, plaintiff’s counsel in that proceeding, the landlord (or counsel) and most significantly, by Spiegel herself. In the Complaint, plaintiff alleges that “plaintiff was pressured into signing said stipulation settlement without being given adequate time, and without having fully read it through” and that Hawco “pressured [her] to settle the lawsuit rather than go to trial” and “threatened to withdraw as plaintiff’s counsel, and leave plaintiff without representation, if plaintiff would not agree to settle the proceeding” (Complaint
