Portilla v. Law Offices of Arcia & Flanagan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Portilla v. Law Offices of Arcia & Flanagan

112 A.D.3d 901, 977 N.Y.S.2d 384

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 26, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 112 A.D.3d 901 (Portilla v. Law Offices of Arcia & Flanagan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Portilla v. Law Offices of Arcia & Flanagan, 112 A.D.3d 901, 977 N.Y.S.2d 384 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the defendants Law Offices of Arcia & Flanagan, Law Offices of E. Abel Arcia, and Eloy Abel Arcia appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (J. Golia, J.), dated July 20, 2009, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must demonstrate that an attorney failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession and that the breach of such duty was the proximate cause of the plaintiffs damages (see Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442 [2007]; Verdi v Jacoby & Meyers, LLP, 92 AD3d 771, [902]*902772 [2012]; Goldberg v Lenihan, 38 AD3d 598 [2007]). Proximate cause is established by showing that the plaintiff would have succeeded in the underlying action or would not have incurred damages but for the attorney’s negligence (see Rudolfo Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d at 442). Therefore, for a defendant in a legal malpractice case to succeed on a motion for summary judgment, evidence must be presented in admissible form establishing that the plaintiff is unable to prove at least one of these essential elements (see Verdi v Jacoby & Meyers, LLP, 92 AD3d at 772; Goldberg v Lenihan, 38 AD3d at 598).

Here, the appellants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The appellants, who did not dispute that they were negligent in suing the wrong party, failed to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff was unable to prove that he would have succeeded in his underlying personal injury action (see Gamer v Ross, 49 AD3d 598 [2008]; J-Mar Serv. Ctr., Inc. v Mahoney, Connor & Hussey, 14 AD3d 482, 483 [2005]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. Mastro, J.P, Rivera, Leventhal and Chambers, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the defendants Law Offices of Arcia & Flanagan, Law Offices of E. Abel Arcia, and Eloy Abel Arcia appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (J. Golia, J.), dated July 20, 2009, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must demonstrate that an attorney failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession and that the breach of such duty was the proximate cause of the plaintiffs damages (see Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442 [2007]; Verdi v Jacoby & Meyers, LLP, 92 AD3d 771, [902]*902772 [2012]; Goldberg v Lenihan, 38 AD3d 598 [2007]). Proximate cause is established by showing that the plaintiff would have succeeded in the underlying action or would not have incurred damages but for the attorney’s negligence (see Rudolfo Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d at 442). Therefore, for a defendant in a legal malpractice case to succeed on a motion for summary judgment, evidence must be presented in admissible form establishing that the plaintiff is unable to prove at least one of these essential elements (see Verdi v Jacoby & Meyers, LLP, 92 AD3d at 772; Goldberg v Lenihan, 38 AD3d at 598).

Here, the appellants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The appellants, who did not dispute that they were negligent in suing the wrong party, failed to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff was unable to prove that he would have succeeded in his underlying personal injury action (see Gamer v Ross, 49 AD3d 598 [2008]; J-Mar Serv. Ctr., Inc. v Mahoney, Connor & Hussey, 14 AD3d 482, 483 [2005]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. Mastro, J.P, Rivera, Leventhal and Chambers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 A.D.3d 901, 977 N.Y.S.2d 384, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/portilla-v-law-offices-of-arcia-flanagan-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack