Exhibit,Appendix: Dorothea Dechen v. Frank Scagluso Esq.

On June 06, 2023 a Exhibit,Appendix was filed involving a dispute between Dorothea Dechen, and Frank Scagluso Esq., for Torts - Other Professional Malpractice (Legal Malpractice) in the District Court of Suffolk County.

Preview
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 08/14/2023
06/06/2023 12:47
03:12 PM INDEX NO. 614272/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32
2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/14/2023
06/06/2023

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
----------------------------------------------------------------------X
DOROTHEA DECHEN,
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff,
-against-

FRANK SCAGLUSO, ESQ., Index No.

Defendant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------X

Plaintiff, DOROTHEA DECHEN, as and for her complaint, by her attorneys Novick &

Associates, P.C. respectfully alleges as follows:

The Parties and Venue

1. At all times hereinafter mentioned, Plaintiff Dorothea Dechen (hereinafter, “Plaintiff”)

was a resident of the County of Suffolk, State of New York.

2. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq. was a resident of the

County of Suffolk, State of New York.

3. Venue in this case lies in Suffolk County, New York pursuant to CPLR §503 because (i)

the Defendant is a resident of Suffolk County and (ii) the transactions from which a

substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in

Suffolk County.

Background Facts

4. This is an action for attorney malpractice, fraud and for violations of Judiciary Law §487.

5. Plaintiff Dorothea Dechen retained Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq. on or about April 20,

2021 to advise her and protect her interests in connection with the Estate of Anthony

1 of 24
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 08/14/2023
06/06/2023 12:47
03:12 PM INDEX NO. 614272/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32
2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/14/2023
06/06/2023

Gugliotta.

6. Anthony Gugliotta died on December 11, 2020, leaving a Last Will and Testament dated

March 24, 2016 and a Second Codicil dated October 28, 2020. (Copies of the Will and

Second Codicil are annexed hereto as Exhibits A and B, respectively).

7. The Last Will and Testament of Anthony Gugliotta dated March 24, 2016 and Second

Codicil dated October 28, 2020 were offered for probate in the Suffolk County

Surrogate’s Court by Roberta Gugliotta. (A copy of the probate petition is annexed hereto

as Exhibit C).

8. In the Last Will and Testament, Plaintiff was left the sum of $500,000.00, fifty-one

percent of A. Gugliotta Development Co., fifty-one percent of T.S. Construction and

Development, Inc. and one-hundred percent of Silk Hair Spa, LLC, as well as one-half of

the residuary estate. (Exhibit A, Paragraph One(G)(3), Paragraph Two(2)).

9. The Second Codicil dated October 28, 2020, inter alia, disinherited Plaintiff Dorothea

Dechen from any interest in the Estate of Anthony Gugliotta.

10. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff, her husband, Roger Dechen, her son, Christopher

Dechen and their friend, Peter Fritscher, all retained Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq. by

executing a retainer agreement dated April 20, 2021.

11. Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq. agreed to represent Plaintiff and provide Plaintiff with

legal advice and representation necessary to protect her interests in connection with the

probate of the Second Codicil of Anthony Gugliotta, dated October 28, 2020.

12. Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq. served as Plaintiff’s attorneys in connection with the

Estate of Anthony Gugliotta, Suffolk County Surrogate’s Court File No.2021-2506, from

-2-

2 of 24
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 08/14/2023
06/06/2023 12:47
03:12 PM INDEX NO. 614272/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32
2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/14/2023
06/06/2023

approximately April 20, 2021 and on a continuous basis thereafter until August 11, 2022.

The Probate Proceeding in the Suffolk County Surrogate’s

13. The Suffolk County Surrogate’s Court issued a Supplemental Citation dated September

14, 2021, returnable on October 26, 2021, in the proceeding to probate the Second

Codicil dated October 28, 2020. (A copy of the Citation is annexed hereto as Exhibit D).

14. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff appeared in the Suffolk County Surrogate’s Court

by counsel, Frank Scagluso, Esq., who had filed by NYSCEF a Notice of Appearance,

and SCPA §1404 Notice and a Letter of Intent dated October 22, 2021, indicating an

intent to conduct SCPA §1404 examinations prior to filing objections to probate. (Copies

of the Notice of Appearance, SCPA §1404 Notice and Letter of Intent are annexed hereto

as Exhibits E, F and G, respectively).

15. Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq. met with Plaintiff in October, 2021 and asked her to sign

Objections to Probate. However, that document was never filed with the Suffolk County

Surrogate’s Court. (A copy of the Objections to Probate is annexed hereto as Exhibit H).

16. The Suffolk County Surrogate’s Court issued an Order for Probate Objections dated

November 1, 2021 via NYSCEF directing that objections to probate shall be filed on or

before December 7, 2021. (A copy of the Order for Probate Objections is annexed hereto

as Exhibit I).

17. On November 3, 2021, Jason Fenley Esq., attorney for the proponent in the probate

proceeding, sent an email to Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq. stating that the “court

placed the matter on the objections calendar with a return date of 12/7.” (A copy of the

-3-

3 of 24
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 08/14/2023
06/06/2023 12:47
03:12 PM INDEX NO. 614272/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32
2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/14/2023
06/06/2023

November 3, 2021 email is annexed hereto as Exhibit J).

18. The November 3, 2021 email from Mr. Fenley to Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq.

discussed scheduling the depositions of the “witnesses demanded in your SCPA 1404

notice” and that Mr. Scagluso “continually informed me that you were filing objections

but instead filed the 1404 notice”. (Exhibit J).

19. Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq. was aware of the demands he served to conduct pre-

objection discovery pursuant to SCPA §1404 as well as the December 7, 2021 deadline to

file Objections to Probate in the Estate of Anthony Gugliotta.

20. The November 3, 2021 email from Mr. Fenley to Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq. also

stated that Mr. Fenley had sent an inventory of assets to the Defendant on July 2, 2021 “to

further a settlement discussion, to which I have never received a response.” (Exhibit J).

21. Between July 2, 2021 and September 3, 2021, Mr. Fenley contacted Defendant Frank

Scagluso, Esq. on no less than eight different occasions asking for an admission of

service of the Probate Citation with no response from Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq. (A

copy of the email chain is annexed hereto as Exhibit K).

22. Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq. did not forward the November 3, 2021 email from Jason

Fenley, Esq. to Plaintiff.

23. Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq. failed to conduct SCPA §1404 examinations or

discovery before December 7, 2021.

24. Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq. failed to file Objections to Probate on or before

December 7, 2021.

25. On December 20, 2021, the Suffolk County Surrogate’s Court issued a Decree admitting

-4-

4 of 24
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 08/14/2023
06/06/2023 12:47
03:12 PM INDEX NO. 614272/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32
2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/14/2023
06/06/2023

the Last Will and Testament dated March 24, 2016 and the Second Codicil dated October

28, 2020 to probate. (A copy of the December 20, 2021 Probate Decree is annexed hereto

as Exhibit L).

26. Upon information and belief, Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq. has received all NYSCEF

notices issued by the Suffolk County Surrogate’s Court from October 22, 2021 to the

current date to his registered email address. (Copies of the email addresses registered by

Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq. with the Suffolk County Surrogate’s Court on NYSCEF

in the Estate of Anthony Gugliotta as well as Defendant’s OCA search result listing his

email address are annexed hereto as Exhibit M).

27. Between December 7, 2021 and December 20, 2021, Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq.

failed to inform Plaintiff that he failed to file Objections to Probate.

28. Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq. never informed Plaintiff that he missed the December 7,

2021 deadline to file probate objections.

29. Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq. never informed Plaintiff that the Verified Objections to

Probate that she executed in October, 2021 were never filed with the Suffolk County

Surrogate’s Court.

30. Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq. did not take any action to seek an enlargement of time to

file Objections to Probate before, on or after December 7, 2021.

31. Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq. did not inform Plaintiff that the December 20, 2021

Probate Decree had been entered by the Suffolk County Surrogate’s Court from the day it

was entered on December 20, 2021.

32. Due to the failure of Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq. to conduct SCPA §1404

-5-

5 of 24
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 08/14/2023
06/06/2023 12:47
03:12 PM INDEX NO. 614272/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32
2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/14/2023
06/06/2023

examinations or to file objections to probate to the Second Codicil dated October 28,

2020, Plaintiff lost her ability to investigate and contest the validity of the Second Codicil

dated October 28, 2020 which disinherited her from her interests under the May 24, 2016

Last Will and Testament.

Circumstances Surrounding the Execution of the Second Codicil dated October 28, 2020

33. Upon information and belief, Anthony Gugliotta suffered a debilitating ischemic stroke at

his home either on October 1, 2020 or the following morning and was not found until

October 3 or October 4, 2020.

34. Upon information and belief, the stroke rendered Anthony Gugliotta partially paralyzed

and unable to speak.

35. On October 8, 2020, Roberta Gugliotta, the wife of Anthony Gugliotta, stated to Plaintiff

by text message that Anthony Gugliotta had a stroke and was in the hospital and was

unable to talk. (A copy of the text is annexed hereto as Exhibit N).

36. On October 10, 2020, Roberta Gugliotta sent an email to Plaintiff admitting that Anthony

Gugliotta suffered from an “ischemic stroke, which affected his right side”. (A copy of

the email is annexed hereto as Exhibit O).

37. Anthony Gugliotta was right-handed.

38. On October 22, 2022, Lora August, the office manager for Anthony Gugliotta, sent a text

message to Plaintiff stating that Anthony Gugliotta was “the same”, that he has been

starting therapy and rehabilitation, that he “hasn’t been up for visitors” and that she

usually goes to his window to visit. (A copy of the text is annexed hereto as Exhibit P). It

-6-

6 of 24
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 08/14/2023
06/06/2023 12:47
03:12 PM INDEX NO. 614272/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32
2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/14/2023
06/06/2023

was clear to Plaintiff that Anthony Gugliotta was unable to talk and that the stroke

severely affected his right side.

39. When Plaintiff called Anthony Gugliotta at Good Samaritan Nursing Home in Sayville,

New York between October 16 and October 19, 2020, a nurse placed the telephone to his

ear but his ability to communicate was limited to the word “yeh”, which he uttered once

or twice and he was not able to articulate any other words and he appeared unable to

understand what was said to him.

40. On October 21, 2020, Plaintiff returned to Anthony Gugliotta’s outside window but when

the nurse/attendant opened the widow, Anthony Gugliotta’s expression was very blank

and he was unable to talk or respond to any questions although he was close enough to

hear the questions.

41. Despite the fact that Anthony Gugliotta suffered a severe ischemic stroke that rendered

him unable to speak or move his right side, the attesting witnesses to the Second Codicil

dated October 28, 2020 swore that Anthony Gugliotta could read, write and communicate

in the English language without assistance despite being right handed. This should have

been the subject of an SCPA §1404 inquiry and/or objections to probate conducted and/or

filed by Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq.

42. On April 20, 2021, Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq. gave a “Memo” to Plaintiff outlining

several areas of inquiry seven (7) months before the Probate Decree was entered on

December 20, 2021, including: “Need to establish coercion by Roberta Gugliotta”, “Need

to establish lack of mental capacity of Testator; Obtain/examine medical record Experts”,

“Were witnesses all present at time of execution” and “Did Testator know what he was

-7-

7 of 24
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 08/14/2023
06/06/2023 12:47
03:12 PM INDEX NO. 614272/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32
2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/14/2023
06/06/2023

signing”. (A copy of the Memo dated April 20, 2021 is annexed hereto as Exhibit Q).

Defendant’s Conduct After December 20, 2021

43. In connection with his representation of Plaintiff, Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq.

engaged in a pattern of misconduct and misinformation that led Plaintiff to believe that

her SCPA §1404 inquiry was being conducted, that her right to file probate objections

was preserved and that she still had the right to file probate objections after December 7,

2021.

44. Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq. failed to inform Plaintiff that the December 20, 2021

Probate Decree had been entered by the Suffolk County Surrogate’s Court on December

20, 2021.

45. Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq. failed to inform Plaintiff of the December 20, 2021

Probate Decree between December 20, 2021 and March 11, 2022.

46. Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq. failed to inform Plaintiff or her husband, Roger Dechen,

of the existence of the December 20, 2021 Probate Decree in response to an email inquiry

sent by Roger Dechen on January 14, 2022. (A copy of the January 14, 2022 email is

annexed hereto as Exhibit R).

47. Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq. failed to inform Plaintiff or her husband, Roger Dechen,

of the existence of the December 20, 2021 Probate Decree in response to a text message

inquiry sent by Roger Dechen on February 11, 2022. (A copy of the February 11, 2022

text message is annexed hereto as Exhibit S).

48. Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq. failed to inform Plaintiff or her husband, Roger Dechen,

-8-

8 of 24
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 08/14/2023
06/06/2023 12:47
03:12 PM INDEX NO. 614272/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32
2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/14/2023
06/06/2023

of the existence of the December 20, 2021 Probate Decree in response to a text message

inquiry sent by Roger Dechen on February 18, 2022. (A copy of the February 18, 2022

text message is annexed hereto as Exhibit T).

49. On March 11, 2022, Plaintiff and her husband, Roger Dechen, went to the Suffolk County

Surrogate’s Court and retrieved documents from the Court file, including the December

20, 2021 Probate Decree. This was the first time that Plaintiff learned of the existence of

the December 20, 2021 Probate Decree.

50. When Plaintiff and her husband, Roger Dechen confronted Defendant Frank Scagluso,

Esq. at his office on March 11, 2022 with the December 20, 2021 Probate Decree and

asked him about its legal meaning, Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq. responded that “we’ll

sit down next week and I’ll have you sign some papers” which Plaintiff understood to

mean objections to probate.

51. On March 11, 2022 Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq. stated to Plaintiff and her husband,

Roger Dechen that they should make an appointment to go to his office to sign papers to

file the objections to probate, even though he knew that the time to file objections had

already expired on December 7, 2021.

52. On March 11, 2022, Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq. did not inform Plaintiff that he

missed the December 7, 2021 deadline to file objections to probate.

53. On March 11, 2022, Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq. did not inform Plaintiff that the

Verified Objections to Probate that she executed in October, 2021 was never filed with

the Suffolk County Surrogate’s Court.

54. On March 11, 2022, Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq. did not inform Plaintiff that he

-9-

9 of 24
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 08/14/2023
06/06/2023 12:47
03:12 PM INDEX NO. 614272/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32
2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/14/2023
06/06/2023

failed to take any action to seek an enlargement of time to file Objections to Probate

before, on or after December 7, 2021.

55. On March 11, 2022, Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq. did not inform Plaintiff that he

failed to file any documents with the Suffolk County Surrogate’s Court to vacate the

December 20, 2021 Probate Decree after its entry.

56. Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq. did not inform Plaintiff or her husband, Roger Dechen,

that he failed to file objections to probate on or before the December 7, 2021 deadline

contained in the November 1, 2021 Order of the Suffolk County Surrogate’s Court after

being asked by Roger Dechen in an email dated March 18, 2022 “[d]id we miss any

deadlines as far as the ability to contest the codicil”. (A copy of the March 18, 2022 email

is annexed hereto as Exhibit U).

57. Upon information and belief, sometime in early May, 2022, Defendant Frank Scagluso,

Esq. drafted Verified Objections to Probate and an Affidavit of Merit and asked Plaintiff

to sign the Verified Objections to Probate and the Affidavit of Merit. (A copy of the first

page of an Affidavit of Merit is annexed hereto as Exhibit V).

58. Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq. represented to Plaintiff that he was going to meet with

Peter Fritscher in May, 2022 to sign the objections to probate.

59. Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq.’s representations in May, 2022 and omissions

concerning his past conduct made Plaintiff continue to believe and rely upon the belief

instilled upon her by Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq. that Plaintiff was able to file

objections to the probate of the Second Codicil dated October 28, 2020 after December 7,

2021.

-10-

10 of 24
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 08/14/2023
06/06/2023 12:47
03:12 PM INDEX NO. 614272/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32
2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/14/2023
06/06/2023

60. During the months of June and July, 2022, Plaintiff made several telephone calls to

Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq.’s office and was informed by either Defendant Frank

Scagluso, Esq. or his secretary that he was filing documents to prosecute her objections to

the probate of the Second Codicil dated October 28, 2020.

61. Plaintiff later learned that the Second Codicil dated October 28, 2020 was admitted to

probate on default on December 20, 2021, that Plaintiff had lost her opportunity to timely

conduct SCPA §1404 examinations as well as her opportunity to timely file objections to

the probate of the Second Codicil dated October 28, 2020 and that Defendant Frank

Scagluso, Esq. had been intentionally misleading and misinforming Plaintiff for months

concerning her rights and remedies in the Estate of Anthony Gugliotta.

Plaintiff’s Attempt to Vacate the Probate Decree

62. Plaintiff retained new counsel and filed a Petition on August 31, 2022 to vacate the

December 20, 2021 Probate Decree in the Suffolk County Surrogate’s Court, File

No.2021-2506/A.

63. During the pendency of the proceeding to vacate the December 20, 2021 Probate Decree,

Plaintiff sought the production of her file from Frank Scagluso, Esq. on several occasions.

Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq. failed to produce her file. (Copies of letters and emails to

Frank Scagluso, Esq. are annexed hereto as Exhibit W).

64. Roberta Gugliotta, the Executor of the Estate of Anthony Gugliotta, filed a motion to

dismiss the Petition to vacate the probate decree. The motion to dismiss was granted on

March 14, 2023. (A copy of the March 14, 2023 Order is annexed hereto as Exhibit X).

-11-

11 of 24
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 08/14/2023
06/06/2023 12:47
03:12 PM INDEX NO. 614272/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32
2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/14/2023
06/06/2023

65. Among the reasons for granting the motion to dismiss stated by the Suffolk County

Surrogate’s Court was a lack of a valid excuse for the failure to timely file objection to

the probate of the Second Codicil dated October 28, 2020 (Exhibit X at p.5), including

the “delay of over five months between examining the court records on March 11, 2022

and filing the instant proceeding” and the fact that Plaintiff “could have filed her

objections at any time, including examinations under SCPA §1404. Objections were

never filed.” (Id.).

66. The Suffolk County Surrogate’s Court also noted that Plaintiff “completely failed to

address the validity of the will, other than tangential, unsupported allegation[s] that

decedent suffered an ischemic stroke shortly before execution of the codicil” (Exhibit X

at p.4) which would have been the subject of an SCPA §1404 inquiry to secure such vital

information, as recognized by Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq. in the April 20, 2021

Memo which states “[n]eed to establish lack of mental capacity of Testator;

Obtain/examine medical record Experts.” (Exhibit Q).

67. Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal from the March 14, 2023 Order on April 14, 2023. (A

copy of the April 14, 2023 Notice of Appeal is annexed hereto as Exhibit Y).

AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Legal Malpractice)

68. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 66 as if

more fully set forth herein.

69. Plaintiff retained Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq. to represent and advise her with respect

-12-

12 of 24
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 08/14/2023
06/06/2023 12:47
03:12 PM INDEX NO. 614272/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32
2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/14/2023
06/06/2023

to her rights in the Estate of Anthony Gugliotta and all matters relating thereto.

70. Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq. represented that he would pursue Plaintiff’s rights and

interest in the Estate of Anthony Gugliotta, engage in settlement negotiations of

Plaintiff’s claims against the Estate and/or object to the documents submitted for probate

and the appointment of Roberta Gugliotta as the Executor of the Estate of Anthony

Gugliotta in the Suffolk County Surrogate’s Court, State of New York.

71. Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq. acted as Plaintiff’s attorney beginning on April 20, 2021

and on a continuous basis thereafter through at least August 11, 2022.

72. Throughout the period between April 20, 2021 through August 11, 2022, Plaintiff

continued to repose confidence in Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq. and in his ability and

good faith, and there was continuing trust and confidence in the relationship between

Plaintiff and Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq.

73. As the attorney for Plaintiff, Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq. owed her a duty to render

legal services in a competent and professional manner and to act with ordinary and

reasonable skill, care and diligence.

74. Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq. acted negligently under the circumstances, failed to

provide legal services in accordance with generally accepted standards of the legal

profession and failed to act with ordinary and reasonable skill, care and diligence.

75. The negligence of Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq. consisted of, inter alia, failing to

engage in SCPA §1404 examinations or discovery, failing to adhere to Court-imposed

deadlines pursuant to the November 1, 2021 Order, failing to timely file Objections to

Probate on or before December 7, 2021, failing to secure an enlargement of time in which

-13-

13 of 24
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 08/14/2023
06/06/2023 12:47
03:12 PM INDEX NO. 614272/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32
2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/14/2023
06/06/2023

to conduct SCPA §1404 examinations or discovery, failing to secure an enlargement of

time in which to file Objections to Probate, failing to immediately stipulate to filing late

objections with the attorney for the nominated executor of the Estate of Anthony

Gugliotta, failing to immediately move to vacate the probate decree to file late Objections

to Probate, failing to advise Plaintiff that Objections to Probate were not filed on or

before December 7, 2021, failing to adequately research and/or know the law as applied

to probate proceedings, failing to represent Plaintiff diligently and failing to advise

Plaintiff properly.

76. Had Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq. secured SCPA §1404 discovery he would have

obtained medical information concerning Anthony Gugliotta’s lack of testamentary

capacity in addition to the admission by Roberta Gugliotta that Anthony Gugliotta

suffered an ischemic stroke that rendered him unable to speak or move the right side of

his body. This would have resulted in the successful prosecution of objections to probate

and the denial of the Second Codicil dated October 28, 2020 to probate.

77. But for the aforedescribed negligent acts, failures and breaches of duty by Defendant

Frank Scagluso, Esq. Plaintiff would have prevailed in the underlying probate proceeding.

78. The foregoing breaches of duty constitute negligence and legal malpractice which have

proximately resulted in substantial damage to plaintiff, including the value of the estate

interests lost upon the entry of the December 20, 2021 Probate Decree, legal fees she

incurred seeking to remedy and mitigate the damage caused by Defendant Frank

Scagluso, Esq. and other fees and expenses.

-14-

14 of 24
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 08/14/2023
06/06/2023 12:47
03:12 PM INDEX NO. 614272/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32
2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/14/2023
06/06/2023

79. Upon information and belief, the value of the bequests to Plaintiff consisting of

$500,00.00, interests in three businesses and one-half of the residuary estate would have

left Plaintiff with a bequest of at least $1,212,466.00.

80. Plaintiff is also entitled to the return of all legal fees paid to Defendant Frank Scagluso,

Esq.

81. Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq.’s negligence was a proximate cause of the damages

described above.

82. By reason of the foregoing legal malpractice of Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq. Plaintiff

has been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial expected to be no less than

$1,212,466.00 plus prejudgment interest at the legal rate from December 7, 2021 to the

date of judgment herein, fees, costs and disbursements.

AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Fraud)

83. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 81 as if

more fully set forth herein.

84. Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq. was Plaintiff’s attorney and as such, a fiduciary

relationship existed between the parties.

85. As Plaintiff’s attorney, Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq. had a fiduciary duty to disclose

relevant and necessary information concerning the procedural and substantive facts and

circumstances concerning his representation of her in the probate proceeding with respect

to the Estate of Anthony Gugliotta.

-15-

15 of 24
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 08/14/2023
06/06/2023 12:47
03:12 PM INDEX NO. 614272/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32
2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/14/2023
06/06/2023

86. Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq. received via NYSCEF all electronically filed notices,

orders and other documents issued by the Suffolk County Surrogate’s Court to one or

more of his registered email addresses.

87. Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq. received the November 1, 2021 Order setting a deadline

by which written objections to probate had to be filed by December 7, 2021.

88. Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq. failed to properly file objections to probate on or before

December 7, 2021 in the Estate of Anthony Gugliotta, either electronically by NYSCEF

or otherwise.

89. Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq. failed to secure an enlargement of time in which to file

objections to probate in the Estate of Anthony Gugliotta on or before December 7, 2021.

90. Knowing that he failed to file objections to probate on or before December 7, 2021,

Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq. intentionally withheld from Plaintiff the fact that he did

not file probate objections on or before December 7, 2021.

91. Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq. received the December 20, 2021 Probate Decree by

NYSCEF to one or more of his registered email addresses.

92. Knowing that the December 20, 2021 Probate Decree had been entered without objection,

Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq. intentionally withheld from Plaintiff the fact that he did

not file probate objections on or before December 7, 2021.

93. Knowing that the December 20, 2021 Probate Decree had been entered without objection,

Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq. intentionally withheld from Plaintiff the fact that the

December 20, 2021 Probate Decree had been entered on default.

94. When Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq. was contacted by Plaintiff and/or her husband,

-16-

16 of 24
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 08/14/2023
06/06/2023 12:47
03:12 PM INDEX NO. 614272/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32
2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/14/2023
06/06/2023

Roger Dechen, between January 14, 2022 and March 11, 2022, Defendant Frank

Scagluso, Esq. failed to inform Plaintiff that the December 20, 2021 Probate Decree had

been entered on default.

95. On March 11, 2022, while at his office is Smithtown, New York, Defendant Frank

Scagluso, Esq. stated to Plaintiff and her husband, Roger Dechen, that they should make

an appointment for the following week to go to his office to sign objections to probate to

the Second Codicil dated October 28, 2020.

96. Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq. asked Plaintiff to sign objections to probate knowing that

the December 7, 2021 deadline to file objections had passed.

97. Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq. asked Plaintiff to sign objections to probate knowing that

the December 20, 2021 Probate Decree had been entered on default.

98. Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq.’s representations after December 7, 2021 concerning the

filing of objections to probate were knowingly false when they were made.

99. Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq.’s representations after December 7, 2021 concerning the

filing of objections to probate were designed to induce reliance by Plaintiff upon the false

statements.

100. Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq.’s omissions concerning the missed deadline to file

probate objections and the entry of the December 20, 2021 Probate Decree were designed

to induce reliance by Plaintiff and to mislead Plaintiff into believing that she still could

file objections to probate after December 7, 2021.

101. Plaintiff, trusting Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq. as her attorney, justifiably relied upon

his false representations after December 7, 2021 concerning the filing of objections to

-17-

17 of 24
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 08/14/2023
06/06/2023 12:47
03:12 PM INDEX NO. 614272/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32
2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/14/2023
06/06/2023

probate.

102. Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq.’s actions in having Plaintiff execute an Affidavit of

Merit and Objections to Probate in May, 2022, were designed to further mislead her, in

the context of a fiduciary relationship, that she may still file objections to probate. These

false representations were intended to induce reliance by Plaintiff and she relied on these

false representations.

103. Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq.’s knowingly false representations in June and July, 2022

that he was filing documents to prosecute her objections to probate were knowingly false,

intended to induce reliance by Plaintiff and relied upon by Plaintiff.

104. Upon information and belief, Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq. engaged in such fraudulent

conduct to hide and obscure the fact that he knowingly missed the December 7, 2021

deadline by which to file probate objections and that the December 20, 2021 Probate

Decree was entered on default.

105. Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq.’s knowingly false representations described herein were

designed to induce justifiable reliance by Plaintiff and Plaintiff so relied to her detriment.

106. Because of Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq.’s fraudulent conduct, Plaintiff has been

damaged by the loss of her interest in the Estate of Anthony Gugliotta, as well as distinct

additional damages constituting the legal fees and expenses she incurred in attempting to

vacate the December 20, 2021 Probate Decree, in an amount to be determined at trial,

plus interest, fees, costs and disbursements.

-18-

18 of 24
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 08/14/2023
06/06/2023 12:47
03:12 PM INDEX NO. 614272/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32
2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/14/2023
06/06/2023

AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Fraudulent Concealment)

107. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 105 as if

more fully set forth herein.

108. A confidential or fiduciary attorney-client relationship existed between Plaintiff and

Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq. between April 20, 2021 and August 11, 2022.

109. The attorney-client relationship between the parties imposed a duty on Defendant Frank

Scagluso to disclose material information to Plaintiff concerning his representation of

Plaintiff and Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq. failed to do so.

110. Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq. failed to disclose to Plaintiff, his client, that he did not

file objections to the probate of the Second Codicil dated October 28, 2020 on or before

December 7, 2021.

111. Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq. failed to disclose to Plaintiff, his client, that the Suffolk

County Surrogate’s Court entered a Probate Decree dated December 20, 2020, admitting

the Second Codicil dated October 28, 2020 to probate.

112. When confronted by Plaintiff and her husband at his office on March 11, 2022 with the

Probate Decree dated December 20, 2020, Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq. failed to

disclose to Plaintiff, his client, that the Probate Decree dated December 20, 2021 was

entered on default.

113. On March 11, 2022, Defendant Frank Scagluso, Esq. failed to disclose to Plaintiff, his

client, that nearly five months had passed since the Probate Decree dated December 20,

2021 was entered and that he failed to expediently move to vacate the Probate Decree

-19-

19 of 24
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 08/14/2023
06/06/2023 12:47
03:12 PM INDEX NO. 614272/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32
2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/14/2023
06/06/2023

dated December 20, 2021 or otherwise file any application or other document with the

Suffolk County Surrogate’s Court concerning its vacature.

114. Plaintiff relied on Defendant Frank Scagluso Esq.’s actions, representations and

omissions that led her to believe that she could prosecute objections to the probate of the

Second Codicil dated October 28, 2020 after December 7, 2021.

115. Plaintiff has incurred damages in an amount to be determined at trial, plus interest, fees,

costs and disbursements.

AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Violations of Judiciary Law §487)

116. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 114 as if

more fully set forth herein.

117. Judiciary Law §487 provides that: A

Case Info

Judge

Maureen Liccione Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

August 14, 2023

Case Filing Date

June 06, 2023

County

Parties

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Exhibit,Appendix: Dorothea Dechen v. Frank Scagluso Esq.

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties