Opinion
2015-05-13
John DELOLLIS, et al., appellants, v. Robert M. ARCHER, et al., respondents.
Levy Ratner, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Robert H. Stroup, Devki K. Virk pro hac vice, and Philip C. Andonian pro hac vice of counsel), for appellants. Furman Kornfeld & Brennan LLP, New York, N.Y. (A. Michael Furman of counsel), for respondents.
Levy Ratner, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Robert H. Stroup, Devki K. Virk pro hac vice, and Philip C. Andonian pro hac vice of counsel), for appellants. Furman Kornfeld & Brennan LLP, New York, N.Y. (A. Michael Furman of counsel), for respondents.
PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, JEFFREY A. COHEN, and COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JJ.
In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Farneti, J.), dated April 12, 2013, as granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the amended complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiffs, who are the trustees of several local and regional benefit funds affiliated with carpenters' unions, commenced this action to recover damages for legal malpractice against the defendants Robert M. Archer and Archer, Byington, Glennon & Levine, LLP, alleging that the negligent performance of their professional duties resulted in losses relating to the Ponzi scheme orchestrated by Bernard L. Madoff and Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities.
“In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the attorney failed to exercise the ordinary skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession and that the attorney's breach of this duty proximately caused plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages” ( Schiller v. Bender, Burrows & Rosenthal, LLP, 116 A.D.3d 756, 757, 983 N.Y.S.2d 594 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Rudolf v. Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 N.Y.3d 438, 835 N.Y.S.2d 534, 867 N.E.2d 385). In addition, to establish causation, a plaintiff must show that he or she would not have suffered any damages but for the attorney's negligence ( see Schiller v. Bender, Burrows & Rosenthal, LLP, 116 A.D.3d at 757, 983 N.Y.S.2d 594).
Here, accepting as true the facts alleged in the complaint and according the plaintiffs 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), the complaint, on its face, failed to allege facts from which it could be reasonably inferred that the plaintiffs would not have suffered any damages but for the defendants' negligence ( see Sierra Holdings, LLC v. Phillips, Weiner, Quinn, Artura & Cox, 112 A.D.3d 909, 910, 977 N.Y.S.2d 751; Citidress II Corp. v. Tokayer, 105 A.D.3d 798, 798–799, 962 N.Y.S.2d 691; Wald v. Berwitz, 62 A.D.3d 786, 880 N.Y.S.2d 293).
The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the complaint.