Young v. Quatela

Full title: Raymond YOUNG, appellant, v. Joseph QUATELA, et al., respondents.

Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Apr 3, 2013

105 A.D.3d 735 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)

963 N.Y.S.2d 267

2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 2243

Opinion

2013-04-3

Raymond YOUNG, appellant, v. Joseph QUATELA, et al., respondents.

Law Office of Michael H. Joseph, PLLC, White Plains, N.Y. (Clifford Nelson of counsel), for appellant. L'Abbate, Balkan, Colavita & Contini, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Scott E. Kossove and Cherice P. Vanderhall of counsel), for respondents.

PETER B. SKELOS

Law Office of Michael H. Joseph, PLLC, White Plains, N.Y. (Clifford Nelson of counsel), for appellant. L'Abbate, Balkan, Colavita & Contini, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Scott E. Kossove and Cherice P. Vanderhall of counsel), for respondents.
PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, L. PRISCILLA HALL, and SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Feinman, J.), entered October 21, 2011, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendants, inter alia, to recover damages for legal malpractice. The defendants met their prima facie burden of establishing entitlement to judgment as a matter of law ( see Friends of Animals v. Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 N.Y.2d 1065, 1068, 416 N.Y.S.2d 790, 390 N.E.2d 298). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572). As the plaintiff correctly concedes, nonpecuniary damages may not be recovered in an action alleging legal malpractice ( see Dombrowski v. Bulson, 19 N.Y.3d 347, 349, 948 N.Y.S.2d 208, 971 N.E.2d 338). Moreover, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether he sustained any pecuniary damages, as the pecuniary losses described in the complaint were incurred by the plaintiff's father, who is not a party to the action ( see Radcliffe v. Hofstra Univ., 200 A.D.2d 562, 606 N.Y.S.2d 333). The plaintiff's professed intention to repay his father for the expenses incurred on the plaintiff's behalf amount to a moral obligation, which does not support a viable claim for damages ( see Coyne v. Campbell, 11 N.Y.2d 372, 375, 230 N.Y.S.2d 1, 183 N.E.2d 891). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.