| Valley Ventures, LLC v Joseph J. Haspel, PLLC |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 00480 [102 AD3d 955] |
| January 30, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Valley Ventures, LLC, et al.,Respondents, v Joseph J. Haspel, PLLC, et al.,Appellants. |
—[*1] Agovino & Asselta, LLP, Mineola, N.Y. (Frank W. Brennan and John M. Comiskeyof counsel), for respondents.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for legal malpractice, the defendantsappeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Bartlett, J.), dated February7, 2012, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendants' motionfor summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
"In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must demonstratethat the attorney failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledgecommonly possessed by a member of the legal profession and that the attorney's breachof this duty proximately caused plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages" (Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci,Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442 [2007] [internal quotation marks omitted];see Verdi v Jacoby & Meyers,LLP, 92 AD3d 771, 772 [2012]; Barnett v Schwartz, 47 AD3d 197, 203 [2007]). "Toestablish causation, a plaintiff must show that he or she would have prevailed in theunderlying action or would not have incurred any damages, but for the lawyer'snegligence" (Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d at 442)."To succeed on a motion for summary judgment, the defendant in a legal malpracticeaction must present evidence in admissible form establishing that the plaintiff is unableto prove at least one of these essential elements" (Verdi v Jacoby & Meyers,LLP, 92 AD3d at 772 [internal quotation marks omitted]). Once a defendant makesthis prima facie showing, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to raise an issue of factrequiring a trial (see Siciliano vForchelli & Forchelli, 17 AD3d 343, 344-345 [2005]; Schadoff v Russ,278 AD2d 222, 223 [2000]).
Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matterof law dismissing the complaint by demonstrating that the plaintiffs would be unable toprove the element of causation (see Marino v Lipsitz, Green, Fahringer, Roll, Salibury & Cambria,LLP, 87 AD3d 566, 567 [2011]; Pistilli Constr. & Dev. Corp. v Epstein, Rayhill & Frankini, 84AD3d 913, 914 [2011]; Markowitz v Kurzman Eisenberg Corbin Lever & Goodman,LLP, 82 AD3d 719 [2011]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triableissue of fact (see generally Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d [*2]557, 562 [1980]).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendants' motion forsummary judgment dismissing the complaint. Skelos, J.P., Hall, Roman and Cohen, JJ.,concur.