| Wald v Berwitz |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 03896 [62 AD3d 786] |
| May 12, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Heather Wald, Appellant, v Barbara J. Berwitz et al.,Defendants, and Michael Dikman, Respondent. |
—[*1] Housman & Associates, P.C., Tarrytown, N.Y. (Mark E. Housman and Brian J. Divney ofcounsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order ofthe Supreme Court, Nassau County (Winslow, J.), entered February 11, 2008, which granted themotion of the defendant Michael Dikman pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss thecomplaint insofar as asserted against him.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), the court must determine, "acceptingas true the factual averments of the complaint and according the plaintiff every benefit of allfavorable inferences, whether the plaintiff can succeed upon any reasonable view of the factsstated" (Malik v Beal, 54 AD3d910, 911 [2008]; see Simmons vEdelstein, 32 AD3d 464, 465 [2006]; Manfro v McGivney, 11 AD3d 662, 663 [2004]).
To prevail in an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, a plaintiff mustdemonstrate that the attorney failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledgecommonly possessed by a member of the legal profession and that the attorney's breach of thisduty proximately caused the plaintiff to sustain "actual and ascertainable damages" (Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker& Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442 [2007]; see AmBase Corp. v Davis Polk & Wardwell, 8 NY3d 428, 434[2007]). "Conclusory allegations of damages or injuries predicated on speculation cannot sufficefor a malpractice action" (Holschauer vFisher, 5 AD3d 553, 554 [2004]).[*2]
Here, the complaint fails to allege facts sufficient toestablish that the alleged negligence of the defendant Michael Dikman proximately caused theplaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages (see Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci,Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d at 442; see Cummings v Donovan, 36 AD3d 648 [2007]). Accordingly,the Supreme Court correctly determined that the plaintiff failed to sufficiently plead a cognizablecause of action against the defendant Michael Dikman to recover damages for legal malpractice(see CPLR 3211 [a] [7]). Rivera, J.P., Covello, Dickerson and Chambers, JJ., concur.