Inscrutable decisions tell us the outcome, but do not enlighten the path to the outcome.  Here are two cases, recently decided by the Second Department in which plaintiff lost a motion for summary judgment in a legal malpractice case.  Why?  What was the shortcoming in proof?  We simply don’t and won’t know.

Verdi v Jacoby & Meyers, LLP ; 2012 NY Slip Op 01243 ; Decided on February 14, 2012 ;
Appellate Division, Second Department  and Schurz v Bodian ;2012 NY Slip Op 01235 ;
Decided on February 14, 2012 ;Appellate Division, Second Department  both tell us:

"The Supreme Court properly, in effect, upon reargument, adhered to its original determination denying the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, since the defendants failed to make the requisite showing of their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Bells v Foster, 83 AD3d 876; Alizio v Feldman, 82 AD3d 804; Ippolito v McCormack, Damiani, Lowe & Mellon, 265 AD2d 303; Ostriker v Taylor, Atkins & Ostrow, 258 AD2d 572). " and "Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the plaintiff was unable to prove that she would have prevailed in the underlying action but for the defendants’ alleged negligence (see generally Zelenaya v Rosengarten, 301 AD2d 519, 520). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Levinnstim v Parker, 27 AD3d 698; see also Molina v State of New York, 46 AD3d 642; Williams v Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 10 AD3d 653). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320). "