Opinion
242 CA 17–01546
03-22-2019
Quintin A. NOWLIN, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Charlie SCHIANO, Jr., Esq., Charlie Schiano, Sr., Esq., and the Schiano Law Firm, Defendants–Respondents.
QUINTIN A. NOWLIN, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT PRO SE. COSTELLO, COONEY & FEARON, PLLC, SYRACUSE (PAUL G. FERRARA OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS–RESPONDENTS.
QUINTIN A. NOWLIN, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT PRO SE.
COSTELLO, COONEY & FEARON, PLLC, SYRACUSE (PAUL G. FERRARA OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS–RESPONDENTS.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CARNI, NEMOYER, AND CURRAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: In this legal malpractice action, plaintiff appeals from an order granting defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to, inter alia, CPLR 3211(a)(7). We affirm. Accepting as true the facts set forth in the complaint and according plaintiff the benefit of all favorable inferences arising therefrom, as we must in the context of the instant motion (see generally Leon v. Martinez , 84 N.Y.2d 83, 87–88, 614 N.Y.S.2d 972, 638 N.E.2d 511 [1994] ), we conclude that the complaint fails to plead a cognizable theory for legal malpractice because plaintiff's allegations do not support even an inference that any alleged negligence by defendants was a proximate cause of plaintiff's damages (see Alden v. Brindisi, Murad, Brindisi, Pearlman, Julian & Pertz ["The People's Lawyer"] , 91 A.D.3d 1311, 1311, 937 N.Y.S.2d 784 [4th Dept. 2012] ; Pyne v. Block & Assoc. , 305 A.D.2d 213, 213, 760 N.Y.S.2d 30 [1st Dept. 2003] ). We have reviewed plaintiff's remaining contentions and conclude that none warrants reversal or modification of the order.