Summary
holding "[t]he motion court properly determined that plaintiff failed to state a cause of action for legal malpractice. The documentary evidence established that plaintiff's successor counsel had sufficient time and opportunity to adequately protect plaintiff's rights."
Summary of this case from Schuster v MillerOpinion
No. 4649.
March 29, 2011.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered January 14, 2010, which, in an action for legal mal-practice and treble damages under Judiciary Law § 487, granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint based on documentary evidence and for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Jaroslawicz Jaros LLC, New York (David Tolchin of counsel), for appellant.
L'Abbate, Balkan, Colavita Contini, L.L.P., Garden City (William T. McCaffery of counsel), for respondents.
Before: Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Catterson, Acosta and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
The motion court properly determined that plaintiff failed to state a cause of action for legal malpractice. The documentary evidence established that plaintiffs successor counsel had sufficient time and opportunity to adequately protect plaintiffs rights. Indeed, plaintiffs English counsel timely commenced a lawsuit in England based on the underlying motor vehicle accident that occurred in England. Accordingly, defendants' alleged negligence cannot be considered a proximate cause of plaintiffs alleged injury ( see Somma v Dansker Aspromonte Assoc, 44 AD3d 376).
The court also properly dismissed plaintiffs claim under Judiciary Law § 487. Plaintiffs allegations of deceit are belied by the record, and she failed to allege that she sustained damages as a result of defendants' conduct ( see Havell v Islam, 292 AD2d 210).
We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing.