Claims Fail, One by One in this Pro-Se v. Pro-Se Lawsuit
Plaintiff was charged with violating the Cornell University Campus Code by allegedly harassing a professor. From there on in her legal arc was consistently downward. She hired defendant attorneys to represent her in a CPLR Art. 78 and in a Title IX claim. Both were unsuccessful. She then sued all the attorneys, both individually and as a firm.
In Hyman v Schwartz 2014 NY Slip Op 01362 Decided on February 27, 2014 Appellate Division, Third Department the AD dismissed legal malpractice claims against all.
"However, defendants correctly argue that Supreme Court should have granted their motion to dismiss the legal malpractice claim. It is well established that, "[i]n order to sustain a claim for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must establish both that the defendant attorney failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession which results in actual damages to a plaintiff, and that the plaintiff would have succeeded on the merits of the underlying action but for the attorney's negligence" (Leder v Spiegel, 9 NY3d 836, 837 , cert denied sub nom. Spiegel v Rowland, 552 US 1257  [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; accord Alaimo v McGeorge, 69 AD3d 1032, [*3]1034 ; see Kreamer v Town of Oxford, 96 AD3d 1128, 1128-1129 ; see also MacDonald v Guttman, 72 AD3d 1452, 1454-1455 ; Bixby v Somerville, 62 AD3d 1137, 1139 ). Here, although the complaint is replete with allegations of Schwartz's alleged failures to use reasonable and ordinary skill in connection with both of plaintiff's underlying claims, it contains no allegation that, but for these alleged failures, plaintiff would have been successful on either claim [FN2]. Therefore, even if we accept the allegations as true and liberally construe the complaint to allege negligent representation by Schwartz (see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 ; Moulton v State of New York, ___ AD3d ___, ___, 977 NYS2d 797, 801 ; Scheffield v Vestal Parkway Plaza, LLC, 102 AD3d 992, 993 ), the allegations are insufficient to make out a prima facie case of legal malpractice (see Kreamer v Town of Oxford, 96 AD3d at 1128; MacDonald v Guttman, 72 AD3d at 1455). "