Petrillo v. Bachenberg
Supreme Court of New York
655 A.2d 1354 (1995)
Attorney Herrigal, representing seller Rohrer and later broker Bachenberg (defendants) in negotiating a property sale, prepared a composite percolation-test report that appeared to show two successful tests out of eight, when in fact only two of 30 tests had succeeded; Bachenberg gave only that misleading page to buyer Petrillo (plaintiff), and Herrigal, who negotiated the sale on Bachenberg's behalf, knew Petrillo would rely on it. After unsatisfactory independent testing, Petrillo sought to rescind and recover her down payment; the trial court found Herrigal owed her no duty, but the appellate court reversed.
Whether an attorney owes a duty of care to avoid making negligent misrepresentations to a non-client third party if it is reasonably foreseeable that the third party will rely on the attorney's representations.