Opinion
October 21, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Kristin Booth Glen, J.).
Respondent's defense of legal malpractice was properly dismissed for failure to adduce any evidence to support his allegations that petitioner was negligent in its evaluation of the marital assets, or even that but for the alleged negligence respondent would have achieved a better result than that obtained in the settlement ( see, Bernstein v. Oppenheim Co., 160 A.D.2d 428, 430; Wexler v. Shea Gould, 211 A.D.2d 450). Respondent's claims that petitioner failed to detect unauthorized changes to the settlement agreement and that neither he nor petitioner read the final draft of the agreement before its execution are foreclosed by the agreement which states, inter alia, that respondent had been apprised of his legal rights and had ascertained and weighed all the facts likely to influence his judgment, and that all provisions of the agreement were fully and satisfactorily explained to him ( see, Wexler v. Shea Gould, supra).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.