In Weksler v Kane Kessler, P.C. ;2009 NY Slip Op 04957 ;Decided on June 16, 2009 ;Appellate Division, First Department  we see the fatal duo of lack of privity and lack of proximity.  The short story is that Plaintiff, while married to decedent was promised a life-long annuity of $ 4000 per month, said to come from the adult sons, so long as she remained married until decedent’s death.  He went into the hospital, came out and filed for divorce.  The sons never funded the annuity.  Plaintiff sues the decedent’s attorney who prepared the plan and the sons, and loses all around.
 

"As to the claim for legal malpractice, there was never an attorney-client relationship between plaintiff and the firm. Even assuming plaintiff had been the firm’s client, she failed to show how such alleged malpractice caused her injury, as the agreement simply effectuated the intent of the parties, i.e., to provide plaintiff with an annuity during her lifetime subject to the stated terms and conditions (see Finova Capital Corp. v Berger, 18 AD3d 256 [2005]; cf. Mandel, Resnik & Kaiser, P.C. v E.I. Elecs., Inc., 41 AD3d 386 [2007]).

Plaintiff’s remaining causes of action against the firm, for negligent misrepresention and tortious interference, are dismissed as redundant of the legal malpractice claim (see Shwartz v Olshan Grundman Frome & Rosenzweig, 302 AD2d 193 [2003]; Reyes v Leuzzi, 2005 NY Misc LEXIS 2914, *3, 2005 WL 3501578, *4; cf. William Kaufman Org. v Graham & James, 269 AD2d 171 [2000]). Finally, although such affirmative relief was not sought, the court did not err in denying plaintiff an opportunity to amend her complaint for a second time, as the proposed speculative allegations failed to establish any viable cause of action (see Davis & Davis v Morson, 286 AD2d 584 [2001]). "