Opinion
2012-07-11
BOARD OF MANAGERS OF BAY CLUB, respondent, v. BORAH, GOLDSTEIN, SCHWARTZ, ALTSCHULER & NAHINS, P.C., et al., appellants.
Goldstein & Altschuler, New York, N.Y. (Paul N. Gruber of counsel), for appellants. Windels Marx Lane & Mittendorf, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Howard L. Simon and Gregory J. Kerr of counsel), for respondent.
Goldstein & Altschuler, New York, N.Y. (Paul N. Gruber of counsel), for appellants. Windels Marx Lane & Mittendorf, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Howard L. Simon and Gregory J. Kerr of counsel), for respondent.
DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, J.P., ARIEL E. BELEN, SHERI S. ROMAN, and SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.
In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Markey, J.), dated December 13, 2010, as denied those branches of their motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action and pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) as barred by the doctrines of judicial and collateral estoppel.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
To state a cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must allege that the attorney “failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession,” and that the breach of this duty proximately caused the plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages ( Leder v. Spiegel, 9 N.Y.3d 836, 837, 840 N.Y.S.2d 888, 872 N.E.2d 1194 [internal quotation marks omitted], cert. denied sub nom. Spiegel v. Rowland, 552 U.S. 1257, 128 S.Ct. 1696, 170 L.Ed.2d 354;see Rudolf v. Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 N.Y.3d 438, 442, 835 N.Y.S.2d 534, 867 N.E.2d 385;McCoy v. Feinman, 99 N.Y.2d 295, 301–302, 755 N.Y.S.2d 693, 785 N.E.2d 714;Gioeli v. Vlachos, 89 A.D.3d 984, 933 N.Y.S.2d 352;Dempster v. Liotti, 86 A.D.3d 169, 176, 924 N.Y.S.2d 484). “To establish causation, a plaintiff must show that he or she would have prevailed in the underlying action or would not have incurred any damages, but for the lawyer's negligence” ( Rudolf v. Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 N.Y.3d at 442, 835 N.Y.S.2d 534, 867 N.E.2d 385;see Gioeli v. Vlachos, 89 A.D.3d 984, 933 N.Y.S.2d 352;Snolis v. Clare, 81 A.D.3d 923, 925, 917 N.Y.S.2d 299;Cervini v. Zanoni, 95 A.D.3d 919, 944 N.Y.S.2d 574).
Here, accepting as true the facts alleged in the complaint and according the plaintiff the benefit of every favorable inference ( see Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83, 87–88, 614 N.Y.S.2d 972, 638 N.E.2d 511;AG Capital Funding Partners, L.P. v. State St. Bank & Trust Co., 5 N.Y.3d 582, 591, 808 N.Y.S.2d 573, 842 N.E.2d 471;Goshen v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 98 N.Y.2d 314, 326, 746 N.Y.S.2d 858, 774 N.E.2d 1190;Polonetsky v. Better Homes Depot, 97 N.Y.2d 46, 54, 735 N.Y.S.2d 479, 760 N.E.2d 1274;Guggenheimer v. Ginzburg, 43 N.Y.2d 268, 275, 401 N.Y.S.2d 182, 372 N.E.2d 17;Peery v. United Capital Corp., 84 A.D.3d 1201, 924 N.Y.S.2d 470;Sokol v. Leader, 74 A.D.3d 1180, 1180–1181, 904 N.Y.S.2d 153;Reid v. Gateway Sherman, Inc., 60 A.D.3d 836, 837, 875 N.Y.S.2d 254;Roth v. Goldman, 254 A.D.2d 405, 406, 679 N.Y.S.2d 92), the complaint adequately stated a cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice by alleging that during its representation of the plaintiff in an underlying lien foreclosure action, the defendant negligently filed an unverified notice of lien ( seeReal Property Law §§ 339–z, 339–aa), and that such negligence proximately caused the plaintiff to incur increased legal expenses by having to defend the validity of the lien against challenges by the defendant in the underlying action ( see VDR Realty Corp. v. Mintz, 167 A.D.2d 986, 562 N.Y.S.2d 7;Wolstencroft v. Sassower, 124 A.D.2d 582, 582, 507 N.Y.S.2d 728). Further, the fact that the plaintiff may ultimately prevail in the underlying action is not an intervening cause requiring dismissal of this action ( see Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Farrell, 289 A.D.2d 286, 288, 734 N.Y.S.2d 217;Home Ins. Co. v. Liebman, Adolf & Charme, 257 A.D.2d 424, 683 N.Y.S.2d 519;VDR Realty Corp. v. Mintz, 167 A.D.2d 986, 562 N.Y.S.2d 7;Wolstencroft v. Sassower, 124 A.D.2d at 582, 507 N.Y.S.2d 728;see also DePinto v. Rosenthal & Curry, 237 A.D.2d 482, 482, 655 N.Y.S.2d 102).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied those branches of the defendant's motion which were to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action and pursuant to the doctrines of judicial and collateral estoppel.