Opinion
July 19, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Graci, J.).
Ordered that the appeal from the order dated March 14, 1991, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated June 19, 1991, made upon renewal and reargument; and it is further,
Ordered that the order dated June 19, 1991, is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, so much of the order dated March 14, 1991, as granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action is vacated, the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action is denied, the amended complaint is deemed served, and the defendants' time to serve an answer to the amended complaint is extended until 30 days after service upon them of a copy of this decision and order, with notice of entry; and it is further,
Ordered that the appellant is awarded one bill of costs.
We find that the court erred in adhering to its original determination to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, and in denying the plaintiff leave to serve an amended complaint. The allegations in the plaintiff's papers, together with her proposed amended complaint, adequately stated a cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice (see, CPLR 3211 [e]; Rovello v. Orofino Realty Co., 40 N.Y.2d 633; Logalbo v. Plishkin, Rubano Baum, 163 A.D.2d 511, 513; Sutton v Aurnou, 149 A.D.2d 687). Bracken, J.P., Balletta, Eiber, O'Brien and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.