Opinion
February 23, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.).
In this action alleging legal malpractice, the trial court properly concluded that any damages sustained by plaintiffs when the vendee rejected title were not proximately caused by defendant law firm Cohen Khani's failure to clear the alleged exception to marketable title. Since the lien on the property had been released and a satisfaction of judgment had been filed in Kings County, the docketed judgment in Nassau County did not constitute an encumbrance that rendered title unmarketable, especially since removal of that judgment required only clerical attention. Moreover, defendants submitted proof that title would have been insured despite existence of the docketed judgment. Thus, plaintiffs could have delivered marketable and insurable title (see, Ilemar Corp. v Krochmal, 58 A.D.2d 853, 855, affd 44 N.Y.2d 702). Moreover, and quite apart from the foregoing, plaintiffs never fulfilled their obligation to expend reasonable money and effort to remedy the alleged defect in title (see, Mokar Props. Corp. v Hall, 6 A.D.2d 536, 539-540) after it became known that defendants had failed to clear the exception. Thus, the vendee's rejection of title was proximately caused by plaintiffs' inaction, not by any negligence on the part of Cohen Khani.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Wallach and Ross, JJ.