[brief] Defendants/Respondents  [...] was advised by the Plaintiffs/Appellants that the building did not have a sewer connection and therefore was unfit for its intended purpose, but [...] failed to advise Plaintiff/Appellant to terminate the lease within the timeframe set forth in the lease itself, which [...] claimed was only a “triggering date”.  Defendant/Respondents successfully avoided liability by persuading the trial moved contend that the failure of Plaintiff/Appellant to amend the R. 4:5-1 certification to identify that they contemplated joining [...] to the lawsuit by the landlord, something that they never contemplated, and which was not required under long-established case law should result in this suits dismissal with prejudice.  Defendants/Respondents filed an enormous motion to dismiss based on R. 4:5-1 (over 1,700 pages!) on the eve of Trial, over 800 days after they filed their Answer.  The Defendants/Respondents’ Motion failed to cite a New Jersey Supreme Court case, which twenty-five (25) years ago, broadcast as black letter law that “all attorney malpractice claims” are exempt “from the entire controversy doctrine” or any competent evidence pursuant to R. 1:6-6, that Defendants/Respondents have suffered substantial prejudice as a result of the Plaintiff/Appellants bringing this legal malpractice action subsequent to an underlying suit with their landlord of that failure to join their claims were inexcusable.  There was nothing competent regarding substantial prejudice.  A search of Defendants’ telephone book sized motion papers will reveal not one piece of competent evidence as to any identifiable prejudice due to the fact that this suit was filed within five (5) months of the conclusion of the underlying suit with the landlord.  While Defendants suggest that both parties inability to locate non-party witness, [...] (“[...]”), has somehow caused them prejudice, they do not tie this into any entire controversial doctrine failure as they themselves evidently took no action for more than twenty (20) months after the suit was filed in this matter to locate [...].  There is nothing set forth by the Defendants that allows one to infer that had Plaintiff amended the R. 4:5-1 disclosure in the prior suit that it would have made any difference whatsoever.  There is nothing in the motion record pursuant to R. 1:6-6 that describes what the Defendants would have done differently or how they have been prejudiced by this five (5) month interval in the litigation.  Tied to the primary point made above, how could Defendants maintain that Plaintiff’s failure to join these claims to the preceding litigation was inexcusable when our Supreme Court broadcast that their claims of legal malpractice were exempt from the obligation to do so under the entire controversy doctrine?  Completely absent from Defendants’ papers is any competent evidence that [...] was unaware of the underlying action in which he was deposed or that if Plaintiffs had amended their R.4:5-1 statement, the Bergen County Court would have provided him notice, or any action that [...] would have taken which would have made a lick of difference in this matter or would have resulted in locating witness [...] between February of 2020 and September of 2020.  Despite this record, the Court granted the Motion to Dismiss.  Plaintiff respectfully submits that this Trial Court’s decision was an error and the Trial Court misapplied and misstated the law in its decision.  Plaintiff looks to this Appellate Court for justice to return this matter to the Trial Court so they can obtain a Trial on the merits.