The Documents Are Insufficient...But the Case is Still Dismissed
Motions to dismiss under CPLR 3211 generally start with an (a)(7) motion and then continue with an (a)(1) motion. Sometimes there is a statute of limitations or more esoteric argument to be made. In Citidress II Corp. v Tokayer 2013 NY Slip Op 02369 [105 AD3d 798] April 10, 2013
Appellate Division, Second Department the Appellate Division gave plaintiff some faint hope in the first paragraph, and then took it all away in the second. Documents insufficient. However, too much speculation.
"The Supreme Court should not have directed the dismissal of the causes of action based on legal malpractice and breach of contract pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1). The documentary evidence submitted did not resolve all factual issues as a matter of law, and did not conclusively dispose of the claims asserted by the plaintiff (see Beal Sav. Bank v Sommer, 8 NY3d 318, 324 ; AG Capital Funding Partners, L.P. v State St. Bank & Trust Co., 5 NY3d 582, 590-591 ; McCue v County of Westchester, 18 AD3d 830, 831 ).
However, the Supreme Court properly determined that the complaint failed to state a cause of action. Speculative contentions about what might have happened had the defendant attorney (hereinafter the defendant) taken a different approach in litigating a case on behalf of the plaintiff were not sufficient to support the plaintiff's allegations of legal malpractice (see Humbert v Allen, 89 AD3d 804 ; Dempster v Liotti, 86 AD3d 169, 180 ; Wald v Berwitz, 62 AD3d 786 ). Since the plaintiff failed to plead specific facts showing causation and damages, its claims of legal malpractice failed to state a cause of action (see Kuzmin v Nevsky, 74 AD3d 896, 898 ; Tortura v Sullivan Papain Block McGrath & Cannavo, P.C., 21 AD3d 1082, 1083 ). Moreover, the claims alleging breach of contract also failed to state a cause of action. These claims are duplicative of the legal malpractice cause of action because they arise from the same facts as those underlying the legal malpractice cause of action, and do not allege distinct damages (see Soni v Pryor, 102 AD3d 856 ; Ofman v Katz, 89 AD3d 909, 911 ). "