A legal malpractice suit against a New Jersey lawyer by a former client in connection with the reconstruction of a fire-ravaged historic mansion-turned-condominium complex in Mount Arlington was properly dismissed on remand after once being reinstated, a state appellate court has said.

Appellate Division Judges Joseph Yannotti, Heidi Currier and Lisa Firko in a per curiam opinion Monday upheld a Morris County judge's finding that plaintiff unit owner did not show that defendant attorney Barry Levine's advice was the proximate cause of her damages—defaulting on a $289,000 payment to the construction company rebuilding the property.

The Appellate Division had previously revived the case in 2018 after the Morris County court first dismissed it. The appellate court held at the time that issues of material fact remained.

According to the decision Monday, plaintiff Roberta Greening is the owner of a unit in what is now known as Windemere Castle, a historic structure built in the late 1800s that overlooks Lake Hopatcong. The "castle" was later converted to condominiums and was heavily damaged in a Nov. 19, 2005, fire. It was rebuilt, and the reconstruction is a prominent issue behind the malpractice lawsuit.

Greening retained Levine, a Morris Plains solo, to represent her in the purchase of one of the Windemere units in 1998, and retained him again in 1999 when she wanted to refinance her mortgage, according to the decision. She also retained Levine to buy a second unit in early 2005, the court noted.

After the fire, the eight unit owners agreed to rebuild, and Greening referred the Windemere Castle Condominium Association to Levine for advice on how to proceed, but there was no written retainer agreement, according to the decision.

The association and the unit owners eventually hired a company called CMR Construction, which agreed to rebuild the castle for $1.37 million within nine months. But 18 months later, the job was still incomplete, and CMR cited "governmental changes" and submitted a "change order" adding $413,550 to the cost, according to the decision. Another bill for an additional $286,633 arrived later, the court said.

The reconstruction eventually was completed two years late, the ruling said. Greening again consulted with Levine and said she could not afford to pay the additional costs. She alleged that Levine urged her to file for bankruptcy protection. There was no retainer agreement, the court said.

At the same time, the association and the other unit owners, after also consulting with Levine, overruled Greening and agreed to pay CMR, and then filed a lawsuit against the company, alleging violations of the Consumer Fraud Act. That lawsuit ultimately was dismissed, according to the decision.

Greening eventually agreed to pay CMR $289,483, but defaulted, and the company obtained a judgment against her, the court said. Greening then sued Levine for malpractice, demanding that he pay her the $289,483 for giving her bad advice.

A Morris County judge dismissed the case in favor of Levine. Greening successfully appealed, and the case was remanded. She lost again at the trial court level, and this time, the Appellate Division sided with Levine.

"It is clear, from the evidence presented during the contract case trial, that even if defendant failed to properly advise plaintiff as to her rights under the CFA, she cannot show she sustained any damages proximately caused by defendant's conduct. When plaintiff was informed by defendant of the possibility of a CFA violation, she thought the Association should 'look into it.' The other unit owners disagreed," the court said. "For their own personal reasons, the unit owners wanted to resolve the CMR bill; they did not want a lien on the Association.

"Furthermore, the owners needed CMR's cooperation and its principal's testimony to support a future separate litigation," the court continued. "In light of those facts, plaintiff cannot establish the Association would have mounted a successful challenge to CMR's final invoice. To the contrary, the unit owners declined to pursue litigation and instead procured a release from CMR, giving up its right to recovery against the Association in exchange for the owners taking on the liability individually. The owners further requested and received an agreement from CMR that if one of them defaulted on the promissory notes, only that promisor would be liable."

Michael Breslin Jr. in Hackensack represents Greening. He said of the decision, "It's very disappointing. … I think my client was denied her day in court."

Mark Tallmadge of Bressler, Amery & Ross in Florham Park, who represents Levine, said, "I'm pleased that the court affirmed because it's been a long road, and I'm glad to see my client is finally vindicated."