From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Porello v. Longworth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 22, 2005
21 A.D.3d 541 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

Opinion

2005-01653.

August 22, 2005.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Feinman, J.), entered December 22, 2004, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied his cross motion for summary judgment.

Jeffrey Levitt, Amityville, N.Y., for appellant.

Litchfield Cavo, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Daniel T. Hughes of counsel), for respondents.

Before: H. Miller, J.P., Cozier, Ritter and Fisher, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

To establish a cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must prove that (1) the attorney failed to exercise that degree of care, skill, and diligence commonly possessed by a member of the legal community, (2) the attorney's conduct was the proximate cause of the loss, (3) the plaintiff sustained damages as a direct result, and (4) the plaintiff would have been successful in the underlying action had the attorney exercised due care ( see Dimond v. Kazmierczuk McGrath, 15 AD3d 526, 527; Magnacoustics, Inc. v. Ostrolenk, Faber, Gerb Soffen, 303 AD2d 561, 562; Ippolito v. McCormack, Damiani, Lowe Mellon, 265 AD2d 303; Volpe v. Canfield, 237 AD2d 282, 283).

Here, the defendants demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by establishing that the plaintiff was unable to prove at least one of the essential elements of the legal malpractice cause of action ( see Dimond v. Kazmierczuk McGrath, supra; DeGregorio v. Bender, 4 AD3d 385; Albanese v. Hametz, 4 AD3d 379, 380; Ostriker v. Taylor, Atkins Ostrow, 258 AD2d 572). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and properly denied the plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment.

The parties' remaining contentions have been rendered academic in light of our determination.


Summaries of

Porello v. Longworth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 22, 2005
21 A.D.3d 541 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
Case details for

Porello v. Longworth

Case Details

Full title:SEBASTIAN J. PORELLO, Appellant, v. RICHARD D. LONGWORTH et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Aug 22, 2005

Citations

21 A.D.3d 541 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 6492
799 N.Y.S.2d 918

Citing Cases

Verdon v. Duffy

Here, in support of their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the defendants established,…

Sanna v. Polizzotto

lpractice action, it is not merely the objective quality of defendants' representation that is determinative…