| Rechberger v Scolaro, Shulman, Cohen, Fetter & Burstein,P.C. |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 09277 [45 AD3d 1453] |
| November 23, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| Edward H. Rechberger, IV, et al., Respondents, v Scolaro,Shulman, Cohen, Fetter & Burstein, P.C., Appellant, et al.,Defendants. |
—[*1] Damon & Morey LLP, Buffalo (William F. Savino of counsel), forplaintiffs-respondents.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County (Robert C. Noonan, A.J.),entered August 8, 2006. The order denied the motion of defendant Scolaro, Shulman, Cohen,Fetter & Burstein, P.C. for summary judgment and granted plaintiffs' cross motion to compel thedeposition of a partner of that defendant.
It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimouslyreversed on the law without costs, the motion is granted, the complaint against defendantScolaro, Shulman, Cohen, Fetter & Burstein, P.C. is dismissed and the cross motion is dismissedas moot.
Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking, inter alia, damages for investmentlosses arising from the alleged legal malpractice of Scolaro, Shulman, Cohen, Fetter & Burstein,P.C. (defendant). We agree with defendant that Supreme Court erred in denying its motion forsummary judgment dismissing the complaint against it. "To recover damages for legalmalpractice, a plaintiff must prove, inter alia, the existence of an attorney-client relationship" (Moran v Hurst, 32 AD3d 909, 910[2006]) and, here, defendant met its burden by establishing as a matter of law that it had noattorney-client relationship with plaintiffs (see Volpe v Canfield, 237 AD2d 282, 283[1997], lv denied 90 NY2d 802 [1997]). Contrary to the contention of plaintiffs, theirunilateral belief that they had an attorney-client relationship with defendant does not by itselfconfer upon them the status of clients (see Wei Cheng Chang v Pi, 288 AD2d 378, 380[2001], lv denied 99 NY2d 501 [2002]). Also contrary to plaintiffs' contention,defendant's representation of a corporation of which plaintiffs were shareholders does notestablish that defendant had an attorney-client relationship with plaintiffs, in the absence ofdocumentary evidence to the contrary (see Griffin v Anslow, 17 AD3d 889 [2005]).
We have considered plaintiffs' alternate grounds for affirmance (see Parochial Bus Sys. vBoard of Educ. of City of N.Y., 60 NY2d 539, 545-546 [1983]), and we conclude that,insofar as they are preserved for our review (see Marcel v Chief Energy Corp., 38 AD3d 502, 503 [2007]; Medina v MSDW [*2]140 Broadway Prop., L.L.C., 13 AD3d 67 [2004]), they arewithout merit. Present—Gorski, J.P., Smith, Centra, Lunn and Peradotto, JJ.