Opinion
Argued January 23, 2001
February 20, 2001.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Steinhardt, J.), dated August 9, 2000, which denied his motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Herbert Monte Levy, New York, N.Y., respondent pro se.
David Roemer, Brooklyn, N.Y., appellant pro se.
Before: RITTER, J.P., KRAUSMAN, FRIEDMANN and SMITH, JJ., concur.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
To state a cause of action sounding in legal malpractice, a plaintiff must show that the defendant failed to exercise that degree of care, skill, and diligence commonly exercised by an ordinary member of the legal community, and that but for the attorney's negligence, the plaintiff would have prevailed in the underlying action (see, Kozmol v. Law Firm of Allen L. Rothenberg, 241 A.D.2d 484; Platt v. Portnoy, 220 A.D.2d 652). After the defendant made out a prima facie case that he was entitled to summary judgment, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.