Candela Entertainment, Inc. v Davis & Gilbert, LLP   2015 NY Slip Op 02712   Decided on March 31, 2015 Appellate Division, First Department is another example of the Appellate Division applying a laser-sharp eye to the “but for” portion of a case.  Here the question, on a motion to dismiss, was not whether the complaint stated “any” cause of action, but rather, could Plaintiff prove that it would not have taken up a commercial transaction if the attorneys had advised them that the transaction required certain consents to be given.

From the decision:  “Plaintiffs’ allegations failed to establish that plaintiffs had a cause of action for legal malpractice. The pleadings, affidavits and documentary evidence submitted on the motion established that the law firm’s alleged malpractice did not proximately cause plaintiffs any injury (see generally Borges v Placeres, 123 AD3d 611, 611 [1st Dept 2014], and Barnett v Schwartz, 47 AD3d 197, 205 [2d Dept 2007]). Plaintiffs never alleged that they would have abandoned or postponed the assignment of film rights and attendant intellectual property from the individual plaintiff’s nonparty, nonprofit corporation to the plaintiff corporation, had they been advised by the law firm that the film involved licensing issues necessitating licensor consents in order to be [*2]freely marketable. The individual plaintiff had secured the licenses for materials used in the film before the assignment, and plaintiffs do not allege that they were unable to secure consents after the assignment.”