ADDITIONAL CASES Sekas Law Group, LLC, Third-Party Plaintiff v. Rosenberg & Estis, P.C., Third-Party Defendant; Third-Party 596070/2019 The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 008) 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290, 291, 292, 293, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 426, 427, 428, 429, 430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439, 440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449, 450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 459 were read on this motion to/for SUMMARY JUDGMENT(AFTER JOINDER. The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 009) 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321, 322, 359, 360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379, 380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409, 410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 458 were read on this motion to/for SUMMARY JUDGMENT (AFTER JOINDER). DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION This legal malpractice action arises out of the representation of plaintiffs by defendant/third-party plaintiff Sekas Law Group, LLC (the Firm) and defendant Nicholas G. Sekas, Esq. (together, SLG) in a mortgage foreclosure action. In motion sequence nos. 008 and 009, SLG moves, pursuant to CPLR 3212, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.1 Plaintiffs oppose and cross-move for summary judgment in their favor. Third-party defendant Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. (R&E) cross-moves for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint. I. PERTINENT BACKGROUND A. The Property at issue In January 2005, plaintiffs, as owners, sold commercial property located at 60-72 Route 303, Tappan, New York (the property) to nonparties So Young Choi, Sarah Kim and Mi-Hyang Yang (collectively, the Original Mortgagors) (NYSCEF 268). The contract of sale provides that a portion of the sale price, or $1. 65 million, was secured by a purchase money mortgage and note given to plaintiffs from, and personally guaranteed by, the Original Mortgagors (id.; NYSCEF 292). Sekas represented plaintiffs on the transaction and prepared the loan documents, including a Term Loan Note dated January 12, 2005 (the Note), which provides for repayment of the principal over 10 years at 6.25 percent interest per annum (NYSCEF 268; 363; 368). Article I, Section 27 of the First Term Loan Mortgage dated January 12, 2005 (the Mortgage) prohibited the Original Mortgagors from causing a second mortgage or other encumbrance, apart from certain permitted encumbrances, to be placed on the Property without plaintiffs’ written consent (id. at 29). In 2006, the Original Mortgagors sold the Property to nonparty Eriora Corp. (NYSCEF 292). Pursuant to an assignment and assumption agreement dated March 13, 2006, Eriora agreed to assume all responsibility on the Note and Mortgage, and Eriora’s principals, nonparties Kwang Kil Moon and Sun Ok Moon2 (together with Eriora, the Subsequent Mortgagors) agreed to execute personal guarantees (NYSCEF 363). Plaintiffs consented to the transaction (id. at 6), and Sekas prepared the assignment and assumption agreement (id. at 4). On April 8, 2010, Eriora’s president, Kwang Kil Moon, executed a mortgage note in the principal sum of $800,000 payable to nonparty Soo I Yong (Yong) in full by March 31, 2011 with interest at 24 percent per annum (NYSCEF 270). The note was secured by a mortgage (the Yong Mortgage) on the Property. Beginning in March 2011, the Subsequent Mortgagors defaulted on paying the installment due that month and every month thereafter (NYSCEF 361). Plaintiffs retained SLG to pursue the rights and remedies available to them to recover the monies due on the Note and Mortgage, but they did not execute a written retainer (id.,
