Opinion
May 30, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kohn, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
In order to recover damages for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must not only prove that the attorney failed to exercise that degree of care, skill, and diligence commonly possessed and exercised by a member of the legal community (see, Logalbo v Plishkin, Rubano Baum, 163 A.D.2d 511), but the plaintiff must also establish that the attorney's negligence was a proximate cause of the loss sustained, that the plaintiff incurred damages as a direct result of the attorney's actions, and that the plaintiff would have been successful in the underlying action if the attorney had exercised due care (see, Luniewski v Zeitlin, 188 A.D.2d 642; Parksville Mobil Modular v Fabricant, 73 A.D.2d 595, 599, citing Kerson Co. v Shayne, Dachs, Weiss, Kolbrenner, Levy Levine, 45 N.Y.2d 730). In the case herein, the appellant failed to raise triable issues as to whether the attorney's actions were a proximate cause of the loss.
The appellants' remaining contention is without merit. Pizzuto, J.P., Joy, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.