We try to read each new published Appellate Division case in legal malpractice, yet some leave us scratching the head.  In Markowitz v Kurzman Eisenberg Corbin Lever & Goodman, LLP ; 2011 NY Slip Op 01626 ; Decided on March 1, 2011 ; Appellate Division, Second Department  one defendant attorney has won and kept summary judgment against plaintiff.  What were the stakes?  It seems from a quick read that the stakes were half of a child’s summer camp costs.  Does the cost of summer camp (which we too remember paying) justify litigation?

""To succeed on a motion for summary judgment, a defendant must establish that the plaintiff is unable to prove at least one of the essential elements of the cause of action" (Dupree v Voorhees, 68 AD3d 810, 811; see Greene v Sager, 78 AD3d 777). The defendant Richard A. Danzig made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff would be unable to prove that, but for the alleged malpractice, he would have prevailed on his claim that he was entitled to the payment of 50% of camp fees for his children in the underlying matrimonial action. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. "

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of Danzig’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him (see Hamoudeh v [*2]Mandel, 62 AD3d at 949; Orchard Motorcycle Distribs., Inc. v Morrison Cohen Singer & Weinstein, LLP, 49 AD3d 292, 293; Olaiya v Golden, 45 AD3d 823, 823-824; Napolitano v Markotsis & Lieberman, 50 AD3d 657, 657-658; Thaler & Thaler v Gupta, 208 AD2d 1130, 1132).
MASTRO, J.P., BALKIN, LEVENTHAL and MILLER, JJ., concur.