Opinion
04-13-2016
Nathaniel B. Smith, New York, N.Y., for appellants. Erlitz and Erlitz, LLP, East Rockaway, N.Y. (Michael R. Freeda of counsel), for respondents.
Nathaniel B. Smith, New York, N.Y., for appellants.
Erlitz and Erlitz, LLP, East Rockaway, N.Y. (Michael R. Freeda of counsel), for respondents.
Opinion
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for legal malpractice, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (F. Rivera, J.), dated April 2, 2015, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiffs commenced this action alleging that the defendants committed legal malpractice by failing to timely request a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge to review certain determinations of the New York State Department of Labor regarding overpayment of unemployment insurance benefits.
The Supreme Court properly denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Contrary to the defendants' contention, they failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that the acts that they allegedly failed to perform were beyond the scope of the subject retainer agreement (cf. AmBase Corp. v. Davis Polk & Wardwell, 8 N.Y.3d 428, 435, 834 N.Y.S.2d 705, 866 N.E.2d 1033; DeNatale v. Santangelo, 65 A.D.3d 1006, 1007, 884 N.Y.S.2d 868; Turner v. Irving Finkelstein & Meirowitz, 61 A.D.3d 849, 850, 879 N.Y.S.2d 145). Accordingly, the defendants failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Thus, the motion was properly denied, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposition papers (see Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316, 476 N.E.2d 642).
The defendants' remaining contentions either are not properly before this Court or need not be reached in light of our determination.
RIVERA, J.P., DILLON, CHAMBERS and DICKERSON, JJ., concur.