Judge Dismisses Case against Corino; Plaintiffs’ Allegations ‘Not Timely’

COURT HOUSE – Superior Court Judge Christopher Gibson dismissed a complaint, with prejudice, (meaning it cannot be refiled), June 8 that had been heard by him May 29 brought by Rose T. James and Della Marie DiPasquale against Doreen Corino and Marie Britton. The matter involved a will of Teresa Dafler and Mary Di Pasquale and an inheritance which James and DiPasquale believed should have been theirs.
Plaintiffs alleged that Corino fraudulently prepared and then later forged a will related to plaintiffs’ claimed rightful inheritance as heirs of deceased sisters, Dafler and Di Pasquale.
Plaintiffs, (James, niece of Dafler and Marie Di Pasquale, daughter-in-law of Mary Di Pasquale) representing themselves without attorneys, in their complaint also allege that Britton (daughter of Mary Di Pasquale) as executrix committed multiple violations of probate law and that both defendants “created a seamless web of deceit” to cheat them.
Gibson concluded his 16-page memorandum of decision on motion stating, “The motion is opposed. The court finds that plaintiffs’ claims are not timely brought pursuant to R. 4:85-1 and are therefore barred. Defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint with prejudice is granted.”
“Defendant Britton contends that plaintiffs knew of the passing of both Theresa Dafler and Mary DiPasquale and knew that their respective wills had been probated but took no action until the instant filing. Accordingly, Defendant Britton asserts that Plaintiffs’ complaint is barred by the time limitations set forth (state statutes).
She further cited an earlier Appellate Court decision, “In reaching this conclusion, we are in accord with a multitude of courts that have held on various grounds that a claim for tortious interference with an anticipated inheritance is unavailable when an adequate probate remedy exists.”
Corino sought similar motions to dismiss as did Britton “for the same reasons,” wrote the judge.
“Additionally, defendant Corino sets forth that the complaint does not aver that plaintiffs were defendant Corino’s clients and were not beneficiaries under Ms. Dafler’s and Ms. DiPasquale’s wills. Defendant Corino submits that plaintiffs cannot establish a legal malpractice claim against defendant Corino. Defendant Corino argues that to establish a claim for legal malpractice, claimants must show “(1) the existence of an attorney-client relationship creating a duty of care upon the attorney; (2) the breach of that duty; and (3) proximate causation.” Additionally, defendant Corino notes that as non-clients, plaintiffs cannot establish that defendant Corino owed them an independent duty.”
“Accordingly, defendant Corino requests that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice and to award her attorneys’ fees and costs based upon the baseless complaint,” the judge continued.