| Board of Mgrs. of Bay Club v Borah, Goldstein, Schwartz, Altschuler &Nahins, P.C. |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 05486 [97 AD3d 612] |
| July 11, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Board of Managers of Bay Club, Respondent, v Borah,Goldstein, Schwartz, Altschuler & Nahins, P.C., et al., Appellants. |
—[*1] Windels Marx Lane & Mittendorf, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Howard L. Simon and GregoryJ. Kerr of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the defendants appeal, as limited bytheir brief, from so much an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Markey, J.), datedDecember 13, 2010, as denied those branches of their motion which were pursuant to CPLR3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action and pursuant to CPLR3211 (a) (5) as barred by the doctrines of judicial and collateral estoppel.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
To state a cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must allegethat the attorney "failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonlypossessed by a member of the legal profession," and that the breach of this duty proximatelycaused the plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages (Leder v Spiegel, 9 NY3d 836, 837[2007] [internal quotation marks omitted], cert denied sub nom. Spiegel v Rowland, 552US 1257 [2008]; see Rudolf v Shayne,Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442 [2007]; McCoy v Feinman,99 NY2d 295, 301-302 [2002]; Gioeli vVlachos, 89 AD3d 984 [2011]; Dempster v Liotti, 86 AD3d 169, 176 [2011]). "To establishcausation, a plaintiff must show that he or she would have prevailed in the underlying action orwould not have incurred any damages, but for the lawyer's negligence" (Rudolf v Shayne,Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d at 442; see Gioeli v Vlachos, 89 AD3d 984 [2011]; Snolis v Clare, 81 AD3d 923, 925[2011]; Cervini v Zanoni, 95 AD3d919 [2012]).
Here, accepting as true the facts alleged in the complaint and according the plaintiff thebenefit of every favorable inference (see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]; AG Capital Funding Partners, L.P. v StateSt. Bank & Trust Co., 5 NY3d 582, 591 [2005]; Goshen v Mutual Life Ins. Co. ofN.Y., 98 NY2d 314, 326 [2002]; Polonetsky v Better Homes Depot, 97 NY2d 46, 54[2001]; Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d 268, 275 [1977]; Peery v United Capital Corp., 84 AD3d1201 [2011]; Sokol v Leader,74 AD3d 1180, 1180-1181 [2010]; Reid v Gateway Sherman, Inc., 60 AD3d 836, 837 [2009]; Rothv Goldman, 254 AD2d 405, 406 [1998]), the complaint adequately stated a cause of action torecover damages for legal malpractice by alleging that during its representation of the plaintiff inan underlying lien foreclosure action, the defendant negligently filed an unverified notice of lien(see Real Property Law §§ 339-z, [*2]339-aa), and that such negligence proximately caused the plaintiffto incur increased legal expenses by having to defend the validity of the lien against challengesby the defendant in the underlying action (see VDR Realty Corp. v Mintz, 167 AD2d 986[1990]; Wolstencroft v Sassower, 124 AD2d 582, 582 [1986]). Further, the fact that theplaintiff may ultimately prevail in the underlying action is not an intervening cause requiringdismissal of this action (see Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v Farrell, 289 AD2d 286, 288[2001]; Home Ins. Co. v Liebman, Adolf & Charme, 257 AD2d 424 [1999]; VDRRealty Corp. v Mintz, 167 AD2d 986 [1990]; Wolstencroft v Sassower, 124 AD2d at582; see also DePinto v Rosenthal & Curry, 237 AD2d 482, 482 [1997]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied those branches of the defendant's motionwhich were to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action and pursuant to thedoctrines of judicial and collateral estoppel. Angiolillo, J.P., Belen, Roman and Sgroi, JJ.,concur. [Prior Case History: 29 Misc 3d 1233(A), 2010 NY Slip Op 52129(U).]