The essentials of legal malpractice litigation, including standing and ascertainable pecuniary loss come up over and over in the Appellate Division cases. Young v Quatela  2013 NY Slip Op 02243
Decided on April 3, 2013   Appellate Division, Second Department is an example.  Plaintiff’s father either suffered the loss or paid for it, and there is some question whether a pecuniary loss happened at all.  Result is is dismissal.
 

"The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendants, inter alia, to recover damages for legal malpractice. The defendants met their prima facie burden of establishing entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065, 1068). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324). As the plaintiff correctly concedes, nonpecuniary damages may not be recovered in an action alleging legal malpractice (see Dombrowski v Bulson, 19 NY3d 347, 349). Moreover, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether he sustained any pecuniary damages, as the pecuniary losses described in the complaint were incurred by the plaintiff’s father, who is not a party to the action (see Radcliffe v Hofstra Univ., 200 AD2d 562). The plaintiff’s professed intention to repay his father for the expenses incurred on the plaintiff’s behalf amount to a moral obligation, which does not support a viable claim for damages (see Coyne v Campbell, 11 NY2d 372, 375). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
SKELOS, J.P., LEVENTHAL, HALL and SGROI, JJ., concur. "