Teresa Giudice's Malpractice Suit: Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law In Opposition To Defendant Kridel

8/17/2019 Teresa Giudice's Malpractice Suit: Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law In Opposition To Defendant Kridel

1/31

Argument

Date:

October 9, 015

TERESA

GIUDICE,

SUPERIOR

COURT OF

NEW JERSEY

Plaintiff,

LAW

.TVISION

-against-

Docket

No.:

MRS

-L-1861-15

JAMES

A.

KFZIDEL, R.,

Civil

Action

Defendant. Hon.

obert

.

Brezana~i

PI,A,NTTT+

F TF,RFSA

GIUDTCE S

MEM~RANllUM

Ok:

LAW

N

OPPOSITIC?N TO

DEFENDANT

KRIDEL S

MOTTfJN

TO DISMISS

CARLOS .CUEVAS, SQ.

Attorney

or

laintiff

Ms.

eresa

Giudice

Carlos

J.

Cuevas, Esq.

Attorney

ID

001811985

1250

Central

Park

Avenue

~

Yonkers,

New

York

10704

(914)

64-7060

ccuevas

6 a~aol

coral

BUDD EARNER,

.C.

ilttor

~eys

or

laintiff

Ms.

Teresa

Giudice

Philip

C.

hrnalcis,Esq.

Attorney

ID

443181997

150

oluz F.

Kennedy

Pkwy.

Short

ills,

NJ

07078

(973)

15-4520

[email protected]


2/31

'

I'

A1

3L

F

O

I'

ON

TE

:t

i

~

S

P

A

G

E

T

'

RC

~,

~

Mr

N

AR

Y

S

T

A

T~

M

~

NT

~

S

i

A

T

E

N

LN

T

G

F

FA

C

TS

3

A

nt

GU

I

?,

~

~

10

~O

IN

`i

'

1

V~S

.

G

Ii

1D

i~

'E

'S

G

U

IL

T

Y

~

,r

~A

~

`~

~

'

R~

CL

UI

~

~;

~E

R

r

R

Q

P

R

OS

E

C

UT

I

N

G

~

~3

IS

~.

E

GA

L

MA

L

Pi

2

AC

T

TC

E

A

C

T

IO

N

A

G

AI

N

S

T

D

E~

E

N~

A

N

~

R

ID

E

~,

A

.

Tl

r e

I

llo

ti

o~r

t

o

Di

sm

is

sS

ta

n

da

rd

1

0

B

.

T

lae

Le

ga

l

Ma

lp

ra

ct

ic

e

S

ta

nd

ar

d

1

1

C

. M

s.

G

it

td

ice

is

~

ao

tEs

to

pp

ed

ro

m

Pr

os

ec

ut

in

g

H

er

Le

ga

l

Ma

lp

ra

ct

ic

e

Cl

a

im

Ag

ai

ns

t

e

fe

~a

rla

nt

Xr

id

el

1

2

D

.

M

s.

Gi

ud

re

e

ea

s

S

uf

fi

cie

nt

ly

A

ll

eg

ed

ro

xi

n7

ute

C

n

us

e

De

fe

nct

a

nt

Cr

ide

l

s

Ne

gl

ig

en

ce

an

d

H

e

r

~z

ju

rie

s

an

d

n~

na

ge

s.

...

..

..

.

l

6

~

O

rN

T

~

18

~~

F

~N

DA

N

'

''

KR

I

DE

~.

,

N

T~

N

TI

ON

A

I.

,

LY

BR

E

A

CH

E

D

~i

S F

ID

U

CI

A

I2

X

D

UT

Y

TO

MS

Gi

Ul

)

IC

~

A

ND

SH

E

HA

S

SU

F

F

ER

E

D

S

I

GN

I

FI

C

AN

T

DA

M

A

G

ES

;

HU

S

S

v

U

TD

Z

CE

-aA

S

S

TA

T

ED

A

CA

U

S

E

O

F

ACTION

AGAINST

DEFENDANT KRTDEL

F

UR

B

R

E

AC

H

O

F

F

I

DU

C

I

AR

Y

D

UT

Y


3/31

} AGE

I'()3' 'T

~I~

21

MS

~IIJDIC~,

~~AS

STANDrNG

TO

PURSUE

THE CAUSES

OF

CTON

AGAINST

~3~ .F~,letD~leI I

K~2][DEL ~3JECAfJ~~

TREY

NOT PROPERTY

?F

HER

BANKR~TPTCY

~;SFATE

~ ~:INT

[V

24

MS

G~ULICF

-~~S

A~..~..EGED

A

CilGNZABL~

CLAIM AGAINST

~Lr nTDAN KR.~DEL

FaR

BREACH ~+

~~NT~ZACT;

~~~?2FFnRF,

THE MOTION

"~~O DISMISS

~~(.U~1~

SE EN~~L*

~ONC~.~J~~~N~

...............................:.............................

25

n


4/31

z~l~r_:r,

of~

AIITIIORXTXI~,s

ti~SES

PAC

21 S

Le»zozne

A>>e,

Corgi. v.

Finco,

Inc.,

272 N.3.

t~pet . X478

(App.

Div.

I994)

...................

..

................. 16

Alampi

,

Russo,

345

N.J.Super.

360 App.

Div.

2001}

...........................................

15

Atanasov

v.

BrunswickBank

&Trust

Co.

lip

r~e

Atr~naso~~),

221

B.R.

l

3

D.N.J. 199 )

................................................

.

...

22

Butner

.

U.

.,

440

U.S.

48 1979}.....

.....................................................

.

.. .

21

Ca~obiaj~co

v.

Sifnolike,

2011

WL

564627 D.N.3. 2011)

..............................................

20

Charles A.

Mangar~as~o

Consulting

Engineef-s,

Inc. v,

Carne~~s Point

Tp. Sewerage

Iutlaof•ity,

344

.J.Super.

343 App.Div.

001).............

25

Conkli7z

v.

~Iannoch Weisman,

145

..i.

39b (1996) ..............................................................

16

C~•aig v.

Suburban Cablevisfon,

Inc.,

140 N.T.

623

1995) ..............................................................

10

Gr~u~zwccld v. 13rvnkesh,

131

N.J.

483

1993)

..............................................................

12,

21,

2

Holstein

v. Knopfley In

t^e

Holstein),

321

B.R.

229

Bankr.

.D.III.

2045)

...........................................

23,

24

Jet•ista v.

A7urf~a~;

iRS N.J.

175

2405} ..............................................................

11, 12

Kanter-

ex f-el.

Estate

of

chwartz

.

Equrt~cble

Life

Assur. Svc.

of

.S.

363

Fed.

App'x

862

3`

d

Cir.

2010)

............................................:

I9

Kim

v.

Baik.,

2007

WL

74715

D.N.J.2007)

..........................

.

..................

.

20


5/31

C11S?t;5

PAUL

Levn

v.

Rite

Ard

Cofp.,

340

N.J.Super.

462

App.Div.2001)

............................................

10

1LIulik

v. Hal~rzc~h,

667 F.SuA~-2d 4~5

D.N.J. 2009)

..............................................

17

Moy

. NI

T

ortgage

CoY~.,

2002 WL

23907

E.D.Pa.

2002)

...............................................

23

New

Ter•sey

Sports

PNoductions,

Inc,

v.

Bobby

Bostick

Promotions,

I

C,

405

N.J.Super. 173,

178 {Ch.

Div.

2007}

.......................................

11

O Do~nd > 1

~ueger•

(In

re

O Doivd),

233

F.3d 197

3`~

Cir.

2000)

.....................................................

24

Packard-Banaberger

o.,

Inc.

v,

Collief•,

167 N.J.

427,

4~3

2001)

.........................................................

18

KI~~C

~~stenzs,

Inc. v.

ModeNn

Technology

Gt~oup,

Is~c.,

861

F.Su~p.2d

436(D.N.J.

2012)

.................................................

24

Sorn»Zers

v.

McKinney,

287

.J.

Super

l(App.

iv.

1996)

........................................

.

.....

12

State,

Dept. of

ativ c~

Public

Safety

v.

Gonzalez,

142

.J.

61b(1995)

.........................................................~--....

12

Union

Ink Co.,

Inc. v. AT T

orp.,

352

N.J.Super.

bl7 App.

iv.

2002)

..........................................

10

I~ideo

Pipeline,

Inc.

v.

Buena

Vista

Hoare

nter~tain~nent,

Inc.,

275

F.Supp.2d

543(D.N.J.

2003)

................................................

24

I~ iatt

v.

Winston

c~:

StYaia~~~

LLP,

838

F.Supp.2d

296{DN.J.

2012)

...............................

...............

I7

t~ instock v.

Galasso,

430

~T T Super.

391

(App.

liv.2012)

...........................................

~ assim

1V


6/31

ST

UTES

Pr~Ci

;

11

U.S.C.

§

341{a)

5

22

M.S.C.

§X41 a}

2l

11

U.S.C.§

727 a) 3)

6

1

U.S.C.

§ 727 a} 4) A)

7

11 U.S.C.§

727{a){4) B}

7

11

IJ S C §

27 a){4) D)

6

18

U.S.C.

§ 152 1} 9,

18

U.S.C.§

152 2) 9,

18 U.S.C.§

152 3)

9,

22

18

U.S.C.§

1349

9,

1,

Fed.

R. anlcr

P.

2004 :

5

. 4:6-2

11

v


7/31

TER

ES

GI

UD

ICE;

SU

PE

RIO

R

CO

UR

T

OF

N

E

W

JE

RS

EY

L

AW

D

IVI

SI

ON

Pla

inti

ff

-a

gain

st-

D

oc

ket

N

o.:

MR

S-L-

186

1-1

5

T

ME

S

A.

KR

IDE

L

R

.,

Civ

il

A

cti

on

De

fen

dan

t.

Ho

n.

R

obe

rt

J Bre

nna

n

F

LA~

Ni

~~

~ ~~

Y2E

SA

Gt

Ur

~kC

E

S

M

E

MO

RA

N

DU

M

F LA

.W

~

N

OPP

pS

IT

rQ

N

T

G-T

~~

x

EN

F

NT

J

ME

S

A.

~R

In F

,i ~

JR.

S

M

OT

IO

N ~

O

D

IS

MIS

S

P

RE

LI

MI

N

RY

ST

T

EM

EN

T

Th

is

Mer

nor

azz

dum

of

L

aw

s r

espe

ctf

ul]y

su

bmi

tte

d b

y la

inti

ff

Te

re s

a

Gi u

dic

e

fi

rms

G

iud

ic~

~

n

op

pos

itio

n

to t

he

Mo

tio

n to

Dis

mis

s

o

f

e

fen

dan

t. J

ame

s A.

ri

del

,

r

~`

Kzid

eP~

M

s.

Gi

udi

ce

r

esp

ect

full

y

su

bmi

ts

tha

t he

r

d

eta

iled

Cozx

~pl

ain

t set

s

fo

rth

a

ega

lly

cog

niz

able

c

lazn

n

f

or

l

ega

l

mal

prac

tic

e. Kx

id e

l

f

ail

ed

to

ex

erc

ise

re

aso

nab

le

skil

l i

n the

lega

l rep

res

ent

atio

n

o

f

Ms

.

G

iu d

ic e

thr

ou

gho

ut

h

er

bar

~lcr

upt

cy

ca

se.

Kri

del

p

rep

ar e

d

a

cid

fi

led

th

e do

cum

e7i

ts

t

hr o

ugh

ou t

th

e

G

iud

ice

ban

kru

ptc

y

c

ase

that

led

to

Ms.

Giu

dic

~s

wa

ivi

ng

h

er

ba

xzlc

rup

tcy

dis

cha

rge

acid

h

er

con

vic

tio

n

f

or

b

anla

up

tcy

fra

ud.

A

fte

r the

Gi

udi

ce b

ank

rup

tcy

c

ase

wa

s

il

ed

Kri

del

p

i

epar

ecl

an

d

f

iled

t

he

nu

mer

ous

ba

nitt

~up

tcy

d

ocu

me

nts

fo

x

whi

ch

Ms

.

iu

dic

e

w

as

ndi

cted

an

d

conv

ict

ed

fo

r ba

nkr

upt

cy

f

rau

d.

T

he

Co

mpl

ai

nt

a

lle

ges t

hat

Kxi

del

adv

ise

d

M

s.

i

ud i

ce f

a prof

fer

f

als

e

te

st i

mo n

y at

her

S

ect

ion

3

41

m

ee t

in g

.

As

et

for

th

He

rein

gre

ate

r det

ail

und

er

Win

sto

ck v

Ga

las

so,

Q3

0

N.

J.

S

upe

r

39

1 {

App

.

Di

v.

2

01

2)Ms.

iudi

ce

s

g

uil

ty

p

lea

i

s

no

t

a

ba

r

t

o

h

er

l

ega

l

mal

pra

ctic

e

ac

tio

n

ag

ain

st

K

rid

el.


8/31

Tl~e

Complaint

also

alleges

that

Kridel s legal

rrzalpractice was

the

proximate

cause

of

Ms.

Gi~.~dice s

~vaivir~g leer

Chapter

7

ischarge and her

incarceration.

The

Complaint

lleges,

in

tremendous

detail

;

ridel s z~uznerous errors z c~

omissions

throt~gl~oi~t

the

Giudice

Bankn~ptcy

Case,

and

low

Defendant

KridePs

poor

legal

advice and

represez~ztatioi~ led

to

Ms

iudice s

wazver

of her

ba~Ikruptey discharge

arad

incarceration.

The

Complaint

also sets

forth a

cognizable

cause of

ction

against

Kridel for

bzeach

of

fiduciary

duty.

Tl~e

Cor~aplaint

alleges that

Defendant

Kridel

intentionally

fazled

to

disclose

his

malpractice

azad its

r~mi~cations

to

Ms.

Giudice.

KridePs

ntentional

concealment of

is legal

zaialpxaetice

was a

substantial

factor in

Ms.

iudice s

waiving

he~~

Chapter

7

ischarge

and

he~~

incaa•ceration.

The

Complai~lt

sets

forth

a

cause of

ction for

breach

of

ontract.

laintiff

s

simultaneously pezxnitted

to

prosecute

causes

of ction

£or legal

n~aipractice and

breach

of

contxact as

long

as

he

oz

she

iles

an

affidavit

of erit.

Ms.

Giudice

has attached

an

affidavit

of

merit

o

her

Complaint.

Ms

iudice

lzas

standing to prosecute

this civil

action

because

t

is

not

pzoperty

of

er

ba.nl~ruptcy

estate. Under

New

ersey

law a

cause

of

ction

for

legal

r~aalpractice

accrues when

a

~la,intiff sustains

damages.

The

Giudice

bankruptcy

case

was iled

on

October

29, 2009.

The

Complaint alleges

that

Kridel

was

negligent

throughout

the entire

Giudice

bankruptcy

case.

On

December

15,

2011 and

Decerzlber

l9,2d11,

Consent

Orders

were

entered in the

Giudice

bankt~ptcy

case

in

which

Ms

iuctice

waived

her

Chapter

7 ischarge.

On

October

2,

2014

Ms.

Giudice

was

sentenced

to

fifteen

months

imprisoniz~ent;

supervised

release for

two

years;

a

8,OOd.00

ine; restitution

of

414,58890;

and a

special

assessment

of 400A0.

Ms

iudice~s

cause

of ction

far

legal

malpractice

accrued

subsequent o

the

coinmenceznent

of

he

Giudice

2


9/31

bankruptcy

case.

Ms.

iudice's

claim

for

legal

malpractice

against

Defendant

Kridel

is

zaot

property

of

er bankruptcy

estate,

and

tl~ierefore,

she

has

standing to

prosecute her

claim

for

legal

malpractice

against Kridel.

ST TEMENT OF

AC'fl

Ms.

iudice

has uo background in

finance

axed no

i~ackground

in real

estate.

(Comb.

42}.

At

he

time

of he

filing

of

he

Giudice Bankruptcy

Case,

Ms.

iuclice

was

inancially

unsophisticated. Comp.

j

43).

During

the

period

fro~z~ 3anuuy

1,

2004

through

t~pril 30,

2009,

NIs.

Giudice

was tz

unemployed

housewife.

Comp. ~ ~4).

In May

049,

Ms.

Giadice

started

appearing

on

the

Bravo

television

show

entitled 7he

Real Housewives

of

New

Iersey

{Comp.

~

46). On e}~temher

14,

2009

Ms.

iudice's

youngest

daughter,

Audriana,

was born.

Comp. j(

47).

Iu

October

2009

Mr.

Giusseppe

Giudice

and

APIs

Giudice

retailed Kridel

to

file a

oint

bankruptcS~

case

for

them.(Comp. ~

1).

On

October

29,

2009

Ka:idel filed a

oint

Chapter

7

ase

for the

Git~dices,

In

re

Giuc~ice,

09-39032 MS), ~

~zted

States Baxilcruptcy Court

or

the District

of

New ersey

{the Criudice

Bankruptcy

Case').

Comp.

1~~ 10, 4).

Defendant ~•idel

was negligent

in preparing the

Giudice bankruptcy petition,

schedules

and statement of

inancial

affairs. Comp.

(~(

88-134).

Bankruptcy

Code

Section

707(b)(4}(D)

states

that

the

attorney's

szgz~aYur~

ou

the

petition

and

schedl~les constitutes

a

certification

t~lat

the

information

is

correct.

Comp. j

88).

ursory perusal

of

he

Giudices'

bankruptcy initial

schedules

reveals

KrxdePs

fundamental errors

and

omissions.

Comp.

~(

103-1

7). A

laring

example

of

efendant ~~idel's negligence in

preparing

the Guzdices'

nitial

bankruptcy

schedules

is

Schedule

{Comp.

j(104).

Kz-idel omitted

Ms.

Giudices

empioyrnent

on The

Recrl

Housewives

of

ew

erse~3'froni the

Giudices

nitial

Schedule

Comp.

¶

04). Ms.

Guidice is

3


10/31

listed

as

unemployed

o1~

her

a~itial Schedule

.

{Come. (

104}.

Tv

omit

Ms. iudice's

employrnerlt

on

a

nationally

feievised

reality

show

was

inexcusable

and is

reflective

of

he

negligent

manner

in

1~vhich

the Giudices~

bankruptcy schedules

we~•e

prepared.

Comp.

(

105).

Another

egz

-

egious

error

in

the

original

Giudice

schedules

is ICridel's

failure

to

list

any

of he

automobiles owned or

leased

by he

Giudices.

Comp. j 107}.

At

the

time

of he

commencement

of

he

Giudice

Banla-

uptcy

Case

the

Giudices ovtmed

a Cadillac

Escalade

and leased a

Maserati.

Comp. (

10 ).

It is

vital

to

file

accurate

schedules

and

statement

of inancial

affairs

because

if

a debtors

schedules

and

state~xient

o£financial

affairs

contain

numex

-

ous

omissions

or

inaccuracies,

such

omissions

ox

inaccuracies

could

result in a

debtor

being denied

a

discharge or

being

indicted for

bankruptcy

fraud.

Comp.

~

128}.

I{xidePs

negligent

pre~aratiazl of

he Giudice's

nitial

schedules and

statement of

inancial

affai7•s

necessitated a

ez•ies

of

nlendz~lents

to

the

Giudice's

schedules

and

statement

of

inancial

affairs.

Comp.

~~

135-161 .

On

December

17,

2009,

ridel

filed

Amended

Schedules

and

an

Amended

Statement

of

'inazzeial

Affairs.{Comp.

14S}.

On March 2,

0Z ,

sidel

filed a

second

Amended

ScheduleF

nd a hird Amended

Statement of 'ina~~cial

Affairs.

Comp.

(

159).

Nevertheless,

after

filing

various

ainendinents to

the

schedules and

statement

of inancial

affairs,

the

United

States

Trustee

would

allege

in

her

objection

to discharge

that there

still

material

omissions

to

schedules

and statement

of

inatacial affairs

including

but

not

limited to

Ms.

iudice's

interest

in the

TG

abulicious

business and

Ms.

iudice's

true

income.

Comp. ~(

160).

KridePs errors

and

omissio~is in

tI~e

preparation

of he

amended

bankruptcy

schedules and

amended statement of inancial

affairs

resulted

in Ms.

iuciice

being

denied

leer discharge

and

being

indicted

for

certain

counts

of ankt-

uptcy

fraud.

{Comp. ~

t

61 .

4


11/31

The

meeting

of

reditors

purst2az~t

to

11

U.S.C.

§

341(a)

2Vleeting

of

reditors') n

the

Giudice

Bankruptcy

Case

was held on

December

23,

009.

Comp.~

62). Kridel instructed

Ms.

Giudice to

testify,under

oath,

at

the

Meeting

of

reditors in

an

~intrtlthfiiI

manner.

Comp.

~

i b5).

Mr. t~idice

and

Ms.

iudice

testified

under

oath

that

the information

coxatained

in the

Petition,

Schedules,

and Statement

of

'inancial

Affairs

filed

as of

hat date

was rue and

correct.

Comp.

1 169).

Ms.

iudice

testified

that

she did

not

hold

interests

iii

any businesses. Connp.

l70).

Defendant

Kridel directed Ms. Giudice

to

testit y that

skze had

no

rental

income

from 1e r

rental

property in

Lincoln Park,New

ersey,

which was

alse.

Comp.

T

171

.

KrideI's

negligent

representation

of

Ms.

iudice

in

cot~_tzection

with the Meetizzg

of

reditors

resulted in

Ms.

Giudice losing

her

discharge and

her being

indicted

for

two coiu~ts of ankruptcy fraud,

concealrz~ent and

false oath.

Comp.

72).

On

April 23,

2010, an

eaannination field pursuant

to

Federal

Rule

of ankruptcy

Procediu

e

2004

2Zule

2004

Examinatiori~was conducted

of

Ms.

Giudice. Comp.

73).

Ms.

Giudice

tes#ified that slie

owned TG

abulicious,

LLC,

hich

was

not

disclosed

in

either

tl~e

initial

schedules or

amended

schedules

filed

by

Kridel.

Comp.

175}.

Ms.

iudice

also

testified

t~iat

she

had

a

previously

undisclosed book

deal

with

Hyperion,an imprint of

uena

Vista

Books,

n.c.,

to

publish

a revio~isl~~

undisclosed

cookbook titled Skin~~y

Italian (Comp.

¶

76).

Kridel's failure

to

adequately

prepaz'e

the

Giudice

bankruptcy

schedules

and

staterz~ent of

financial

affairs;

his

failure

to adequately

prepare

the

several

past

-petition

an~endments

to the

Giudice

bankruptcy

schedules

and statement of

inancial

affairs;

and his

failuz'e to

adequately

prepare

Ms.

Giudice

to

testify

resulted

in

Ms.

Giudice

being indicted for

bankruptcy

fraud.

(Comp.¶ 77).

s


12/31

On

tune

3~, 01

d,

John

S}~vilolc,

the

Chapter rustee of

Mr.

Giudice

and

Ms.

Giudice

filed

a

complaint

objecting to

the

discharge

of Mr. Giudice

and

Ms.

Giudice,

V1NlI0IC

V.

Gl2lL~lL 2,

Adv.

ro.

No.

10-01845(MS),United

States Bankruptcy

Curt or

the

District

of

New

erse~~

f

Tz

ustee

Sywilok

CompIaznt ). Comp.

178).

The

First

Count

of he

Trustee

Sywilok

Complaint,

ursuant

to Banlauptcy

Code

Sectiozi

727(a)(3),

sought

to deny Ms.

Giudiccs

discharge because of lleged conceal~czent ofdocuments,

ecords

and

papers

from

which

the

Giudices

fnancial condition could

be

ascertained.(Comp.

179}.

The

acts

complained

of

include the

failure to disclose an

intexest in

TG

aUulieious,

LLC nd

a

book

deal.

(Copp.

179).

The

Second Count of

he Trustee

Sywilok

Complaint,

ursuant

to Banitruptcy

Code

Section

727(a)(4)(A), sought

to

deny

Ms.

iudice s

discharge

because

of

lleged

false

oaths

made

n

the

petition and

schedules.

(Comp.

180).

Tnistee Sywilok alleged false oaths

as to

income,

xpenses

and

assets.

(Comp.¶ 80).

The

Tllird

Count

of

he

Txttstee

Sywilok

Complaint,

pursuant

to

Bantc~

uptcy Code Section

727(a)(4)(D), sought o

deny

Ms. iudice s

discharge

because

of lleged

withholding

of

nforn~.ation

concerning

her

financial

affairs.

(Comp.¶

81).

The

acts

complained

of

nclude the

failure

to disclose

an

interest

in

TG

abulicious

LLC

nd

a

book deal.

(Comp.

~

81).

When

rustee

Sywilok

filed

his objection to

disck~arge, Kridel had

a conflict

of nterest

with

Ms. iudice.

(Comp.~ 82).

Kridei s

negligent

errors and

omissions z~ preparing the

znatez

-

ially

deficient

schedules and

statement of

iYiancial affairs and

the

erroneous amendments

as

well

as

his

negligent

repxesentation of

Ms. iudice in

connecCion

with

her

sworn testimony

in

tl~e

Giudice

Bankruptcy

Case

caused the

Trustee

Sywilok Complaint

o

be

filed.

Kridel

dicE

not

disclose

to

Ms.

Giudice that

his

negligence

was the

impetus

or

the

Trustee S}~wilok

Complaint

~7


13/31

to

be

filed.

Co1np.

~ l 82).

Instead,

Kridel

embarked

on

a plan

to

cover

up

and

conceal his

negligence

fi•on1

Ms.

iudice.

Comp.

182).

The

~f~ce

of he

United

States

Trustee

is a division of

he

United States

Department

of

Justice z•esponsible

for

the

adniinistratioxl

of ankruptcy

cases.

(Comp. (

193).

On

eptezr~ber

2,

2010 he Office of

he

United

States

Trustee

Filed

a

complaint

objecting

to

Ms.

iudzce's

discharge,

DeAngelis

.

Gizsdice,

Adv.

Pro.

No. 10-2150(MS),

United

States

Bankruptcy

Court

foz-

the

District

of

New

ersey the U.S.

Trustee

Coxn~lainf'). Comp.~

194}.

The

First

Count of he

U.S.

rustee

Complaint

objected

to

Ms.

iudice's

discharge

on

account

of a

alse

oath,

11

U.S.C.

§

27(a)(4)(A).

Comp.

¶

95}.

Tlie

pertinent portion

of

the First Count tates:

78. Even aftex

multiple

amendments

to

their

Schedules

and

Statement

of

~ inasicial

Affairs,

the Defendants

till have not iled

any

amendments

disclosing

the existence

o:F

the

book Skuiny Italzan;'the

Defendant

wife's

publishing deal

with

Hyperion,

he

wife's

interest in

TG

abulicious,

LLC,

nd

the

Defendant

husband's

interest iii

1601

Maple Avenue

Associates,

LLC.

79.

'he

Defendant wife

testified

at

the

Meeting

of

reditors

that

she

does

not

have

any interests

iri any

businesses,

which was

a

alse

oath in

light of

er

subsequent

disclosure

of

er

ownership

of

TG

abulicious,

LLC.

(U.S.

rustee

Comp. jy~

78-79)

Comp. (

195).

The

Third

Count

of

he

U.S.

T7ustee

Complaint

objected

to

Plaintiff

Giudice's

discl~ar~e

on

accotuit

of

l~e

conceali~~ent of

roperty with

intent

to

defraud creditors

aftez

the ~`iling of

he

bankruptcy

petition, 11 U.S.C.

§

27{a}(2){B}. Comp.

¶

97).

Kxidel

failed

to

disclose to

Ms.

Giudice that his

malpractice

was

an

affi~~mative

defense to

the United

States

Trustee's

objection

to

discharge.

Comp.

01).

Ki•idePs

inalpracfice

should

1?ave been

employed

as an

affirnlative defense to

negate

the

issue of

Ms.

iudic;e's

fraudulent

intent.{Comp. ~

201).

7


14/31

Upon

information and

belief,

during

the

pe~•iod

of

t~rch 23,

011

and

March

24, 011

Defez~d~lt

Kridel had

at

least

two

telephone

conversations

with,

and

correspondence,

from

the

United

States

Attorneys

Office

for

tl~e

District

ofNew

ersey during

which

Defe~~dant

Iiridel

was

otified

that

the

Gi~.idzces

were

the targets of

ederal

gz•and jury

investigation for mortgage

fraud

and

baf~lcruptcy

fraud.

Comp. 207}.

On

or about

Marc11~24, 2011,

ridel

received

a

letter

from

the

Uzazted

States

Attoi-~iey for

the

District

of

New

ersey

informing

hznn that

Ms.

Giudice

was

.

target

of

fedezal

grand

ury far

mortgage fiaud

and bankruptcy

fraud.

Comp.

(

2a8}.

Kz•idel

led

to

explain

to

Ms.

Giudice

the import

of

1~e

Target

Letter.

Camp.

211).

Ksidel

failed

to

explain to

Ms.

Giudice

that

she immediately

~~eeded

to

retain

a

criminal attorney

~~ith

significant federal

white

collar

crzminal experience

because t

was robable that she

would

be

indicted

for bankruptcy fraud

oz

mortgage

fraud.

Comp.¶

12).

KridePs

actions

were

consequential

and

injurious to Ms.

Giudice

because she

was not

ndicted until July

29,

013.

Comp.

20).

Kridel

acted

in

his

best

interests

to

conceal his

malpractice

from

Ms.

iudice,

and

he failed

to

protect

Ms.

Gzudice,

he

victim of

is

malpractice.

Comp.~

21).

Kridet exercised poor

udgment

because

he

continued

to

Iitzgate

the

U.S.

nistee

Complaint and

engaged

in

discovery

instead

of

ddressing the

potential

criminal

charges

against

Ms. iudice.

{Comp.

j~j{

223,

30-31).

Kaidel

failed

to warn Ms. Giudice

that

she

could

incriminate herself

by

engaging in

discovery in the

pending

adversary

proceedings.

Comp. (

229).

K.ridel

mishandled

the

Giudice

Chapter ase

to the

extent

that Ms. iudice s

Chapter

discharge

could

i~ot

be

salvaged.

Comp.

¶ 55},

On

ecember 15,2011,

Consent Order

was

entered

in c~hich

Ms.

Giudice

v~~aived her

Chapter

ischarge

in

the United

States

Trustee s

adversary

proceeding

objecting to

her

discharge. Corrip. ~

256).

On

Decen

~ber 19,

2011, a

8


15/31

Coi~ser~T

Judgment was

entered

in

the

Chapter•

7

rustee s

adversa~~y

proc~edii~~

in

which

~Is.

Giilclice

waived

11er

discharge.

(Comp.

~

ZS7).

Ms. Giudice on July

29,

013

was

ndicted, U.S.A. v.

Giudice, 2:13-cr-00495-ES,

nited

St~3tes

District

Court

or

the

District

of

New

ersey.

Comp. (267). On

November

18,

2013 a

First Superseding

Indictment

i`FSI )

was

iled agaziast

Ms.

iudice.

Comp. 26~).

The FSI

charged Ms.

Giudice

with

comrr~itting thirt~~-three crimes. Comp. (

269). The

FSI

charged

Ms.

Giudice

with

committing

nineteen baz~la~upt~y

crizxies.

Comp.¶ 70).

Fifteen

out

of

he

i~ineteezl

counts

for

bankruptcy

crimes are

for

incidents

that

occurred after

the Giudice

Bankruptcy Case

was

iled.

(Comp.

j

271}.

The

FSi

ncludes

counts

relating

to

tl

ce

~unei~dnaents

of

he schedules

and

statement

of

inancial

affairs;

the

Meeting

of

redito7•s;

the

Fede~~al

Rule of

Bai~la~uptcy Procedure

2004

exa.cx~ination;

and

the

deposition in the

United States

Trustee s

adversary

proceeding.

Con~}~.

~

295).

On

March 4,

20

4 Ms.

iudice entered into

a lea agreement under

which

she

plead

guilty to

conspiracy

to

con~znit mail

and

wire

fraud

18

U.S.C.

§

1349

Count 1);

concealrrzez~t

of

assets

in

violation

of

13

U.S.C.

§

152(1)(CoLuit 15);

false

oath in

violation

of

18 U.S.C.

§

152(2)

(Co~mt 23); and

false

declaration in violation of 18 U.S.C.§ 152 3)

Count 6).

{Comp.

~

296}.

On

October 2,

2014

Ms.

Giudice

was

sentenced to

fifteen

months

inlprisorunent;

supervised

release

for two years;a

8,000.00

ine; restitution of

414,588.9Q;

and a

pecial

assessment of

40U.OU.

Comp.

(

297).

~


16/31

A

k2

GU

i~

IE

':

VT

P

UI

i~

'T

I

n

~S

. G

~

~JDICE'S

GU

I

L

TY

P

L

EA

DOES

NOT

P

R

E

~

LU

~

E

H

E

R

FR

C

1M

P

RO

S

EC

U

T

IN

G

~

4- i

7S

~.

,~

~A

~.

M

AL

P

R

AC

T

I

CE

A

C

TI

O

N

AG

A

I

NS

T

D

E

F

EN

D

NT

K

R

ID

E

L

A

Th

e

Mo

ti

on

to

D

is

mi

ss

St

an

da

rd

T

he

Ne

w

J

ers

ey

S

up

re

m

e

C

oi

u

t

ha

s

ma

de

h

e

f

ol

lo

wi

ng

s

ta

te

men

ts

c

or

~ce

rn

iiz

g a

r

~~ o

ti o

~i

to

ci

is

zni

ss

un

de

r

Ru

le

4:

6-

2

e):

B

ec

au

se

t

he

ma

tt

er

ari

se

s o

n d

ef

en

da

nts

m

ot

io

n

to

d

is

mi

ss,

w

e

a

cce

pt

a

s

true

d~te

facts

alleged

i~1

the

complaint.

Riedej~

v.

De~ccYtment

of

i~ansp.,

22

1

N

.J

.Su

pe

r.

54

7,

52

,

53

S

A

.2

d

51

2

Ap

p.

Di

v.

19

87

).

T

he

e

st

is

v~

~h

eth

er

t

he

a

ll

eg

ed

fa

ct

s`

~u

gge

sf

a

ca

use

of

cti

on

.

V

e1c

zT~

atz

as

v.

Co

lg

crt

e-

P

al

mo

li

ve

Co

.,

I0

9

N

.J

.

1.8

9,

19

2,

5

36

A.

2d

2

37

19

85

).

la

int

if

fs

ar

e

e

nt

itl

ed

t

o

ev

er

y r

ea

so

na

bl

e

i

nf

ere

nc

e

i~~

the

zr

fa

vor

.

C

ra

ig

v.

S

ub

ur

ba

n Cca

bl

ev

isi

on

,

In

c.,

14

0

N.

J.

62

3

,

25

-

26

19

95

).

m

ot

io

n t

o

d

ism

is

s

fo

r

fa

il

ur

e

t

o

st

ate

a

c

la

zm

un

de

r

R

:C

~-2

{e

) sha

t~

ld

b

e gr

an

te

d w

it

h

g

rea

t

ca

uti

oz

z.

U

nz

on

I

nk

Co

.,

In

c. v.

AT

T

o

rp

.,

3

52

N.

J.S

up

er

.

61

7

,

64

4

A

pp

.

iv

.

20

02

).

Th

e

l

ai

nti

ff

s

ob

li

gat

io

n it

i

order

to defeat

a

motion

to

disrtaiss

is`~aot

to

prove the

case but

only to snake

a

lle

ga

ti

ons

,

wh

ic

h,

i

f

~

z~ o

~~ e

n,

w

ou

lt3

co

nst

it

ute

a al

id

c

au

se

o

f

c

tio

n

. L

eo

n

v

.

R

rt

e

A

id

Co

rp

.,

40

N

.J

.S

up

er

.

46

2,

47

A

pp

.D

iv

.2

00

1

.

K

ri

de

l

a

dv

oc

at

es

t

ha

t`~

la

int

if

fs

c

la

im

s

ar

e

in

er

itl

es

s

a

nd

t

he

C

om

pl

ai

n

t sh

ou

ld

be

dis

mi

ss

ed

{

De

fe

nd

an

ts

M

e~

z7o

. o

fL

a

w

.

1)

.

Ttl

is

i

s si

mp

ly

th

e

in

co

rr

ect

l

ega

l

st

and

ar

d to

a

pp

ly

to

a

mo

ti

on

to

d

is

mi

ss.

A

s

et

Ea

rt

h

a

bo

ve

i

n

t

he

o

pi

ni

on

wr

it

ten

b

y

C

hz

ef

u

st

ice

Pol

la

ck

,

l

l

t

~z e

allebations in the

Complaint

are to

be

acce

pt

ed

as

t

rue

,

a

nd

I

le

st

an

dar

d

f

or

di

srz

iis

sa

l

ta l

e

1

0


17/31

dismissal

of

compIainE

is

whether the

alleged

facts suggest'a

cause

of ction.

It

is

res~3ectfully

submitted

that

the

Complaint suggests'a

cause of

ction

for

legal

malpractice

against Kridel.

Nevertheless, f

~i~atters

outside

the

~teading

are

presented to

aiad not.

excluded

b}~

the

court,the

motion

shall

~e

treated as

one or suzzamary

judgment and

disposed of

as

provided by

R.

4:46,

and

all

parties

stall

be

given

reasonable

opportunity

to

}resent

all

~natez

ial

pertinent to

such a

motion R.

:~-2.

It is

respectfully

represented that if

the

Motion

to

Dismiss is

converted

to

a Motion

for

Summary

Jud~n~ent

that the

Motion or

Suinmazy

Judgment

should

be

dezaied.

There are numerous

material

facts in dispute that

preclude Kridel

being

awarded

sunaxnary

judgment:

a)

Was

efendant

Kridel's

negligence

a

ubstantial factor in

Ms

iudice

waiving her

discharge

acid

pleading

guilty

to

three

counts

of

bankruptcy

fraud;

b)

Was

efendant Kridel

negligent in

preparing

the

amendments

o Ms.

Giudic~s

schedules

and

statementof inancial

affairs;

c}

Did

Defendant

Kridel

z~itentionally

instruct

Ms

iudice

to

estif~~

falsely at

her

Sectiol~

341

Meeting;

d) Was

efendant

Kridel

negligent in handling

the

Target

Letter;

e)

Did Defe7idant K.ridel intentionally

conceal

his

negligence

Ms.

Giudice; and

fl

Did Defendant Kridel negligently

represent Ms. Giudice

throughout

the

Giudice

Bankrup#cy Case.

B.

The

Legal

al~~ractice Standard

ause of

ction

for

legal

malpractice requires

a

plaintiff

to prove:

a) he

existence

of

n

attorney

-client

relationship

creating a

duty

of are

upon the

attorney; b)

he breach

of

hat duty

by

the attorney;

and c)

roximate causation of he damages

claimed

by

the plaintiff.

Jerista

v

Nlur•ray,

185

N.J.

175, 190-91 (?005).

The

Appellate

Division

has

made the

following

comments

concerning

the

standard

of

are

that a

lawyer

must

ui~iish

to

a client:

A

motion to

dismiss is

nat

converted

veto a summary

udgnent

motion

by

iiiz~g

~~ith

the

court

a document

referred to

in

the

pleading.

Ne~v

Jet-sey

Sports roductions,

Inc. >. Bobby Bostick

Promotions,

.LC,

X105

N.1.Super.

173, 178

Ch.

iv.

2007).

11


18/31

An

ttorne}~ is

obligated

to

exercise that

degree

of

'easonable

l~no~~~ledge

ai

d

slcilI

that

lawyers

of

rdinary

ability

and skill

possess

and

exercise.

St.

Pius,YHouse

o~Retreats

.

Diocese

of

anzc~er~,

88

N.J. 571;

588

;

X43 A.2d

l

52

1982).

Necessary

steps

to tiie

proper

handling

of

a

case

i~zciude

caxeful

investigation

of

l~e

facts

of

he zz~atter,

formulation

of

legal

strategy,

ing

o~

he

appropriate

papers

;

nd maintenance

of

coinznunicatioi~

with

the

client.

Ziegellzeini v.

Apollo,

128

N.J.

25Q,

26

,

607 A.2d

1298

1992).

Somme~~s

.

McKrn~ey,

87

N.J.

Super

1,

9 App.

Div.

1996).

A laim

for

legal malpractice

does

zaot

accxue

until

the plaizatiffhas suffezed

deliages.

Gt~unwald v.

Brof~kesh,

13I

N.J.

483,

492

(1993).

C. Ms.

Giudice

is not Estopped

Nom Prosecuting

Her Legal Malpractice

l~ ~ir~~

Against

Defendant

Kridel

In

a

civil

action

involving tort

or

contract

claims,

ie doctrine

of

ssue

preclzzsion

does

~~ot

autoinaticaily

preclude a

plaintiff

in

a

civil

trial

from

contesting

the

adi~iissions

that

formed

the

basis

for his

or

her

guilty

plea. YYinstock v.

Galasso,43

.J.Super.

391,

396 App.

Div.

2013).

The New

Jersey

Supreme

Court

has

stated:

It

is beyond

dispute

that in

a

trial involving

a

cause

of

ction

based

on

tort

or contract,

a

paz

ty's

guilty

plea

may

be used as

affirmative,

substantive

evidezace

against

that party.

Eaton

v.

Eaton,

119

N.J.

628,

643, 75 A.2d

858

{1990);

toelting

v.

Hauck,

32 N.J.

87,

106,159

A2d

3~5 1960). In

such

civil

ptoceediugs,

the guilty

plea

is

introduced

into

evidence

as

an

admission,

but

t

does

not

constitute

conclusive

proof

of

the

facts

underlying

the

offense.

Eato~r,

supra,

1

i9

.J.

at

644,

575

A.2d

858.

n that context, the

party

who

has entered

the plea

may ebut

ox

othen~vise

explazn

the

circumstances

suxrounding

the

adinission'.'Ibid.

{citations omitted}.

Consequently,

the

doctxine

of

ssue

preclusion does

not

prevent the

pleadzng party in t3ie trial

of

a

tort

or

contract

claim

from

contesting

the

admitted

facts.

State,

Dept.

of

aw Public

Safety v.

Gonzalez, 142

N.J. 618,

624

1995).

is

A

ece~~t

case in which

the

Appellate

Division held that

a plaintiff

who

had

pled

guilty

to

a

crime

was

ermitted

to

prosecute

a

legal

malpractice

action

against his

former

attorney

is

12


19/31

WirZstock

v

Galasso,

430

N.J.Super.391

(App.

Div.

2013).

There,

the

Plaintiff

Richard

Winstocl~s limited

liability

company

retained

the defendant to

furiaish

legal advice

concerning

the

operation

of okez

totunaments.

The

defendant

p~~e~ared a

memorandum

concerning

tl~e

legality

of

he Winstocl~s

imited

liability

company s

proposed

business.

The

defendant

endered

an

opinion

that the proposed

operation

of

a

poker tournament

by

the limited liability

coxilpany

would

not

violate

New

ersey

law.

Wirzstock was

taped by

an

undercover

agent

stating that

he

had

a

legal

opinion

that

his

poker tournaza~ez~t

was legal. Winstock

was

subsequently ai

ested

a»d

pleaded guilty to fourth

degree

maintenance

of

g~unbling

zesort

for

participating

in tl~e proceeds

of

gambling

activities

and

to

thi~•d

degree

pronrzoting

gambling.

The

Appellafie

Division

ruled that Winstock

could prosecute the

legal

malpractice

action

against

the defendant, is

former

attorney.

The couz`t

distinguished

the

Alarnpi

decision,

which

is

relied

upon by

Kridel,

and t

stated:

s

our

extensive

review

of

he

facts

underlying our

decision

in Alampi

shows,

Iae

plaintiff

was lready

involved in

criminal

activzty

as an

accountant

by

failing

to

report

to

the

IRS

the

uzilawfitl

diversion

and

concealment

of

ncome

by

his clients,

before he

retained

t

ie

defendant.

Alarnpi,

supra,

345

N.J.Super.

t

3b465,

35

A.2d 65.

Anothez

significant

distinction froYn

the facts

here,

the

colloquy

between

the

plaintiff

and

the

federaljudge

llust~•ate

that the

~iaintiff

knew

he was

violating

the

law

before

he

retained

the

defendant.

See

ibic~

Id.

at

415.

The courtreasoned

~lat

Winstock proceeded with

the

venture after

he had

obtained

legal

advice

from

the

defendant

that

the

proposed

business

venture

was

legal.

The

Appellate

Division

stated:

It is

undisputed that all of

his

activity

Richard ~~~instock

admitted ie

engaged in

occurred

after

he

had

retained

defendant

as

his

legal advisor.

Accepting

plaintiffs

version

of vents

in

the

light most

favorable to

them;

as

required

under

Rule

4:46-2(c),

defealdant

reviewed

and

approved

13


20/31

Td

.

pla

int

iffs

b

us

ine

ss

mo

de

l

i

n

kris

Nov

em

be

r

23

,

2

00

4 eg

al

mem

or

~z~

dz

~m

.

Al

tho

u~;

l~

de

fe

nda

nt

s

leg

ai

~i

ni

on

ma

y

n

ot

~

~ve

a

bs

olv

ed

R

icI

~ar

d

W

in

st

ack

of

rim

ina

l

re

~o

rzs

ibi

li

t~f

or

hi

s

ac

tz

ons

M

r.

Wi

ns

toc

k

s

adm

is

si

on o

f

ri m

in

al

cu

ra b

il

ity

d

id

ri ot

z

•el

iev

e

de

fen

da

nt

of

i

s

d

uty

to

~ovide

plaintiffs

1~

ith

leg

al

ly

correct

advice. (E

zn

pl~

asi

s

a

dde

d)

.

Equ

al

ly imp

or t

an

t,

ev

en

if

Wi

ns

toc

k

s

sta

te

men

ts

be

for

e t

e

cri

rz ~

in a

l

c

our

t

w

er

e

in

ter

pre

ted

a

s az

z

un

eq

ui

voc

al

ad

mis

si

on

th

at

he

u

as

op

er

ati

ng

a

gai

rz

bli

ng

z

~e s

or t

t

hat

suc

h

adm

is

sio

n

is

no

t dis

pos

it

ive

of

he

de

fen

da

nt

s

pot

ent

ia

l civ

il l

iab

ili

ty

for

la

zs al

leg

ed

inc

or

zec

t

le

gal

a

dvi

ce

.

In

a

r

ial

inv

ol

vin

g

a

c

aus

e

o

f

c

tio

n

ba

se

d

oz

i

to

rt

or

c

ont

ra

ct,

a

pa

rt

s

ui

lt

y

ple

a

d

oe

s

n

ot

con

sti

tut

e co n

cl

us i

ve

p

ro

of

o

f

t

ie

fa

cts

un

dez

~ly

ing

t

he

o

ffe

ns

e.

Th

e

ot

u~ t

con

cl

ud

ed

b

y

s

uin

n~a

ri

zin

g

it s

h

old

ing

:

Ri

cha

rd

W

ins

to

ck

s

ad

mis

si

ons

at

the

p

le

a

li

ea ri

i3a

m

ay

b

e

evi

den

tia

l

in

h

is ci

vil

c

la

im

s

o

f rof

es

sio

na

l

ma

lpr

ac

tic

e

ag

ain

st

de f

en

da n

t.

H

is

le

a

al

one

, h

owe

ve

x,

d

oes

n

ot

p

re

clu

de

hi

nl

o

r J

eiu

iif

er VVi

nst

oc

l<

f

ro

m

arg

ui

u~

t

hat

d

efe

nda

nt

`s

all

eg

ed

pr

ofe

ssi

on

al

neg

li~

~e

nce

w

as

a

p

rox

im

ate

c

au

se

o

f

he

d

am

ag

es

t

hey

iii

cu r

z~ e

d

by

o

~er

at

in~

t

he

f

if

th St

re

et Cl

ub

,

L

L

C E

mp

ha

si

s add

ed

.

Icy

at

4

18

.

U

nd

er

W

ins

to

ck,

M

s.

i

udi

ce

s

gu

il

ty i

le

a

t

o

b

an

kru

pt

cy f

rau

d

is

n

ot

a

bar

to th

e

pr

os

ecu

tio

n

o

f

h

is

ci

vil

ac

ti

on.

Ms

iu

dic

e ret

az~

aed

K

ri

del

to

p

rep

ar

e

he

r

ban

kr

upt

cy

do

ct

un e

nt

s,

an

d

to

rep

re

sen

t

I

~e r

in

t

l~e

Gi

i~

dic

e

Bai

~ic

rup

tcy

Cas

e.

C

am

p.

¶

4,

2).

P

rio

r

t

o

e

ng

ag

ing

Kr

ide

I,

Ms

.

Giu

di

ce

~a

d

n

ot c

onu

ni

tte

d

an

y

ty

pe

of

ban

kr

upt

cy

cr

ime

.

D

ef

end

an

t

I~

id

ePs

i~

tne

rou

s e

rr

ors

a

nti

omi

ss

io

ns r

esu

lte

d

in

M

s.

G

iud

ic

e bei

tzg

i

nca

z c

era

ted

.

Co

mp

.

).

Ms

.

iud

ice

s

C

om

pl

ain

t

ca t

al o

gu

es t

he

i~

tui

lex

au

s

ins

ta

nce

s

o

f r

ide

l s

ne

gli

ge

nce

.

C

om

p.

¶

¶

61

-2

66

.

Pa

rag

ra

ph

31

6

o

f he

Com

pl

ai

nt

p

ro

vid

es

a

su

mm

ar

y

of

rid

el

s

p

ost

-

pe

tit

ion

ne g

li

ge n

ce :

14


21/31

(a)

epresenting

the Plaintiff

tkuoughout

t ie

Bankruptcy

Case

whew

t

was

appa~~ellt

that

he

lacked

the

ability

to

competently

represent

the

Plaintiff;

(b}

legligently preparing

materially

ii~accuz~ate

amendments

to

tlxe

schedules

aild

statement

of inancial

affairs;

(c) egligently advising

Plaizatiff

l~uoughout

the

Banla

-

uptcy Case;

(d}

~egligez~t z-

epresei~tation in

cot~ection

with

the

Section 3~k1 Me~tin;;

{e)

egligent representation in

coruiectioi~

with

the

2004

xan~iaaafiozl;

~

waiving

the

attoxney-client privilege

by

appearing

with

Plaintiff

Giudice ai

d

discussing

matters

pertaining to the Giudice

Banla~uptcy

Case

on

the Real Housewives

of

New

ersey;

(g)

ailing

to

disclose

his

conflict

of

ntez~est

and

(h) egligent representation

in

connection with

the

Target

Letter.

Comp. 1316).

Under N~i~tstock,

despite

her

guilty

plea,

Ms.

iudice

is

authorized

to prosecute

her

claim

fo~~ legal

malpractice

ag~insfi Kridel.

Kridel's

reliance

onAlampi .

Rrssso,

345

N.J.Super.

360{App. Div.

2001)

s

misplaced.

There;

the

plaintiff was

engaged in

the

criminal conduct

hat

he

sought

to

hold the

attorney

accountable

for

in

the

malpractice

action.

Izi

tl~e

case

at

bar, NIs.

Giudice is

alleging

that it is

I~~idel's

negligent

legal representation

that

is responsible

for

the

waiver

of

er

Chapter

7

discharge, her indictment for baa~latiiptcy

fraud,

at~d

her

guilfy

plea

for

bankruptcy

fraud.

For

example,Paragraph 165

of

he

Gitxdice

Complaint

states: Defend~7t

Kridel znstructed

Plaintiff

Giizdice

to

testify

under

oath

at

the

Meeting

of reditors in an untruthful

manner (Camp.

¶

65).

Ms. Giudice

has

alleged

that the

reason

she

is

incarcerated

is

because

slle

followed

Kride]'s

legal

advice.

Comp. ~`~

2, }.

Under

these cireiunstances, yVinstock, is controlling and Alampi,

s

inapplicable.


22/31

D

.

M

s.

Gi

ud

ic

e

h

as

St

fi

rie

nt

ly

A

ll

eg

ed

Pr

ox

im

at

e

C

ar

rs

e

Be

tr

vee

f~

D

ef

en

d

an

t

K

ri

cle

l'

s

Ne

gl

ig

ei7

ce

an

d

H

er

nj

w•

ies

an

d Da

m

ag

es

Th

e

Ne

w

e

rs

ey

S

up

x

e

me

Co

u

rt

1a

s

a

do

pt

ed

th

e s

ub

sta

ta

tia

l

fa

ct

or

tes

f'

for

p

z~n

xi

r~a

tP

c

au

se

in

le

gal

ma

lp

ra

cti

ce

c

as

es

a

nd

i

t

ha

s

st

at

ed:

Gen

er

al

ly

,

ou

r

cot

ae

ep

ts

o

f

aus

at

io

n fo r

f

ai

lur

e

to act

az

e e

xp

res

se

d

ts

te

rm

s o

f

wh

et

he

r th

e

ne

gl

ig

en

t co

nd

uc

t m

y

be

co

ns

id

er

ed

a

s

ubs

ta

nti

al

fa

cto

r

co

ntr

ib

ut

in

g t

o

th

e

lo

ss

.

S

ee

Br

ow

n

v U

ra

it

ed

St

at

es

S

to

ve

Co

.,9

8

N.

J.

1

55

,

1

71

,

48

4

A.

2d

12

3

4

{

19

84

)

`W

it

h

re

sp

ec

t to

co

nc

urr

en

t

~

zo

xi

ma

fe

ca

usa

ti

on

a

or

tf

ea

sor

w

ill

be

hel

d a

ns

we

ra

bl

e

i

f

t

s

`ne

gl

ig

ent

c

on

du

ct

v

as

a

ubs

ta

nti

al

fac

to

r i

n

br

in

gin

g

a

bo

ut

th

e i

njt

ui

es,

'

e

ve

rt

wh

er

e

th

ere

ar

e

ot

he

r

in

te

rv

en

ing

c

au

se

s

wh

ic

h

w

er

e

o

re

se

eab

le

or

w

er

e

t~

.or

rn a

l

i

nci

de

nt

s o

f I

~e

r

is

k

cr

ea

ted

~

q

uot

in

g

R~

~pp

r~

po

rt

v.

t

iTi

ch

ols

,

31

N. J

.

18

8,

2

02

,

X

56

A

d

(1

95

9)

).

Al

th

ou

gh

t

he

la

w

~

f

e

gl

ig

en

ce

recognizes

that

t

he

re

m

y

be

au

y

nu

mb

e

r of

on

cu

rr

en

t ca

us

es

o

fan

inj

ur

y,

[

nJe

ve

r

the

le

ss,

the

se

ac

ts

n

ee

d

not

,

o

f

h

em

se

lv

es

,

b

e

ca

pa

bl

e

o

f

p

ro

du

ci

ng

t

he

i

nju

ry

; it

is

ez

io

ug

h if

t

he

y ar

e

a

s

ub

sta

nt

ial

fa

cto

'

n

br

in

gi

~ig

i

t

ab

oi~

t'.

'S

cot

t

v.

S

al

em

C

ou

nt

~~

Me

mo

ri

a

l

Ho

sp

.,

1

1

6

N

.J.

Su

pe

r.

29

,

3-

34

,28

0

A

.2

d

3

43

A

pp

.D

iv

.1

971

).

Co

nk

li

n

v.

H

af

~n

oc

h

i~e

is

fnc

~n,

14

5 N

.J

.

3

96

,

1

9-

20

19

96

).

li

e te

st o

fp

ro

xii

na

te

c

au

se

is

s

ati

sf

ied

~~l

he

re

t

he

n

eg

li

ge

nt

co

nd

uc

t

is

a

su

bs

ta

nti

al

co

nt

riU

ut

in

g

F

ac

to

r

in

c

au

si

ng

th

e

l

os

s.

2

17

5

L

er

no

zne

A

ve

.

Co

rp

.

v.

Fr

nc

o,

nc

.,

27

2

N.

J.

Su

pe

r.

4

78

,

8

7

A

pp

.

D

iv

,

19

94

).

In

t

he

c

as

e

at

b

ax

th

e

c

las

si

c

ex

am

pl

e

of

ubs

ta

nt

ial

co

nt

ri

but

in

g

fac

tor

•

is

De

fe

nd

an

t

Kr

ide

l'

s

neg

li

ge

nt

ha

nd

li

ng

of

he

T

ar

ge

t

Let

te

r.

(

Coi

zl

p.

~

~

20

7-

54

}.

Pa

rag

ra

ph

s 2

17

-2

19

of

l~

e

C

on

~~l

ai

alt

sta

te

:

2

I7

.

Pla

in

tif

f

G

iu

di

ce

w

as

re

ly

ing

u

po

n D

ef

en

da

nt

K

xi

de

l

t

o

p

ro

te

ct la e

r

I

eg

al

in

te

res

ts

.

21

8.

D

ef

en

da

nt

ir

ide

l

kn

e

w

hat

P

la

in

tif

f

Gi

ud

ic

e

w

as

ot

al

ly de

pe

nd

en

t

u

po

n hi

m

fot

•

l

eg

al

c

ou

ns

el.

2

19

.

Wh

e

n

De f

ex

zd

an

t Kr

id

el

r

ec

ei

ve

d

the

Ta

rg

et

L

et

ter

he

w

as

aw

ar

e

tha

t

Pla

in

tif

f

Giudice's

liberty

was

at

stake,

and he

failed

to

refer

Plaintiff

G

iu

di

ce

to

a

c

on

lp

ete

r~

t

cr

im

in

al

a

tt

or

ne

y

s

pec

ia

li

zi

ng iii

fe

der

al

cx

ii

nin

al

l

ar~

~ t

o

p

ro

tec

t Iz

er

fr

o~i

i

a

po

te

nti

al

fed

er

al

cr

im

in

al

i

nd

ict

rrz

en

t.

C

om

p.

~~1

21

7-1

9)

.

I6


23/31

A~~othex~

example of

ruxin~ate

cause and

substantial

facto s

tl~e

waiver

of

Ms.

iudice s

discharge.

Ms.

Giudice

had to waiver

her

Chapter

7

ischarge.

The

Complaint

alleges

that

because

of

efendant

Kridel s

negligence

Ms.

iut3ice

hacl

to

waive

her

discharge.

{Comp. ~

~

27,188-$9).

The

pertinent

portion

of

aragraph 27

f he

Complaint

tates:

As a esult of

Defendant

KridePs

multiple

errors

and

omissions

Plaintiff

Giudice

waived

hey

bankruptcy

discharge

... (Comp.

~

27).

Paragx

aphs

188 and

189 of he

Complaint

allege:

188. Defendant

Kridel was

~ot

competent o

handle 1~e

Giudice

B~nla

tiptcy

Case.

189.

At

every stage

of he

Giudice

Bankruptcy

Case

Defendant

Kridel

made

x~ztical

errozs that

resulted

in

two

objections

to

discharge being

filed

against

Plaintiff

Giudice.

{Comp• 1~)

188-89).

The

Complaint also

alleges

that

it

was Defendant

Kridel s

negligence that

was the

pzoximate

cause of

riinil~al

charges

being

brought

against Ms.

iudice and

Ms.

Giudice

having

to

plead

guilty to

three

counts of

ankt uptcy

fraud.

Comp. ¶

Z, 4,

27,

253,254

05).

Ms.

Giudice

plead

guilty

to

four

counts,

i

~d

three

of

he

counts

were

for

bankruptcy

fraud.(Comp.

~

296).

Under

hese

circumstances,Ms.

Giudice

has

sufficiently

plead

that

Defendant

Kridel s

negligence

vas

a

substantial

facto

in

her

waiving

her bankruptcy

discharge

axed

pleading

guilty

to

three

counts

of

ankruptcy

fraud.

i~icrtt

v.

T~linston

trawn

L

LP,

838

F.Supp2d 296,

d9-13

(D.N.J.

2012);

crizlc

ip

Hannah,

61 F.Supp.2d

485,

91-93

D.N.J. 2009).


24/31

POlI~1

I

DES NDANT

KRIDEL INT~NTInNALLY

I3REACHEI?

HIS

FIDUCIARY

X?UTY

TO NIS.

GII1J~~E

AND SHE

HAS U~ FEREll

SI~I~7

it+I~A.NT DAii•~A,G?~+;5;

TH~liS,1~~S.

GUa~I

E

r~A.S STATED

A

CAUSE

OF

ACTION AGAINST

DE~ ~NDANT

KRIDEL

FJR

BREACH

bi

FIDUCIARY DUTY

T11e

New

ersey

Supreme

Court has

made

l~e following

comments

concerning a

cause of

action

for

breach

of

iduciaiy

duty as it relates

to

an

attorney:

Stated

plainly,

an

attorney

wino

intentionally violates the

duty

of

oyalty

owed

to a

client

commits

a mere

egregious

offense

than

one

who

negligently

breaches

the duty

of are.

A

lient's

claim

concerning

the

defendant-attorney's

breach of

fiduciary

duty ma~~

arise

in

the

legal

malpractice

context.

Packard-BarnbeYger

o.,

Inc. v. Collier,

167

.J.

427,443

2001).

The

Complaint

alleges

a

fiduciary

relationship between

Ms. itidice and

Kridel.(Comp.

~~

62).

Tl~e

Complaint

lleles tl~e numerous

ways in

which

Kridel

inte~~tionally breacl3ed

leis

fiduciary duties

to

Ms.

iudice:

a)

Defendant

Kridel

repeatedly

chose to

Documents

Teresa Giudice's Malpractice Suit: Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law In Opposition To Defendant Kridel