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