In Fortress Credit Corp. v. Dechert LLP (89 AD3d 615, 934 NYS2d 119 1st Dept 2011), a lender brought suit against a law firm for professional malpractice and negligent misrepresentation. (Id. at 616.) The defendant law firm had written a legal opinion for its client, a borrower, on whether relevant loan documents had been carried out with the formalities necessary to make them binding. (Id.) In its written legal opinion letter, the law firm determined that the relevant loan documents had been duly executed and delivered. (Id.) The lender alleged that it sustained damages by relying on the law firm's faulty written opinion. (Id.) The Court found that the lender had sufficiently alleged a relationship of "near privity" between itself and the law firm because the lender alleged "that the particular purpose of the opinion letter was to aid the lender in deciding whether to enter into the loan transaction, that the law firm was aware that the lender was relying on the opinion in making that decision, and that the law firm evinced its understanding of that reliance by addressing the legal opinion to the lender." (Fortress Credit Corp. at 616-617.) The Court dismissed a legal malpractice claim, concluding that the parties had no attorney-client relationship. In Fortress, attorney Marc Dreier proposed to plaintiffs that they participate in short-term note program to finance real estate purchase where the borrower would be Dreier's clients and Dreier was the guarantor. Plaintiff asked Dreier and his client to get an opinion letter from independent counsel before entering into transaction. Plaintiff later sued the independent counsel, arguing that it relied on counsel's legal opinion that certain loan documents were duly executed and that the loan was a valid and binding obligation. The First Department rejected Plaintiff's legal malpractice claim, concluding that Plaintiff had no attorney-client relationship with counsel, even though "plaintiffs were meant to benefit by defendant's actions." The Court stated that "while plaintiffs were meant to benefit by defendant-attorney's actions on behalf of client Solow Realty, that circumstance does not give rise to a duty to plaintiffs on the part of the attorney." Id. at 616.