Legal Question in Real Estate Law in New York

Failure of the lawyer to obtain a title search and to explain the encumbrances on title is not in keeping with good practice. I am not saying it IS malpractice, but it has at least one of the ingredients. In order to prove malpractice, you have to have damages. Buying the shed (which now has to come down) is one element of damages, but the real damages lie in the difference in value between the house with the restrictive covenants, and the house without those covenants. Sometimes, there are two brokers on a deal: the seller's selling broker and your purchasing broker. You could talk to YOUR broker (if there is one) about this issue. You will need to get an expert opinion as to what difference it makes in the value of the property. Once you have damages, you can pile on the claim for disruption of life, etc. and have a viable legal malpractice suit. Whether it will fly in your county is another question entirely; but it sure looks like a potential claim, subject to proving damages. That you would not have bought the house with the covenants does not mean you can make the lawyer buy the house unless you can show that the lawyer knew about the covenants (maybe he was involved in the original development) which would mean that he faithlessly covered up the problems. In that case, you not only have a malpractice claim but also a claim of attorney misconduct--a "grievance" you could report to the county bar association.