Just as the roof proved inadequate to the task, so the proofs on plaintiff’s case were inadequate to the claim in Petre v Alouidor & Assoc.  2017 NY Slip Op 51590(U) Decided on November 27, 2017 Appellate Term, First Department.  It appears that there was no expert.

“The trial court correctly dismissed the action at the close of plaintiff’s case. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, there was no rational basis by which the trier of fact could have found in his favor on his purported legal malpractice claim (see Szczerbiak v Pilat, 90 NY2d 553, 556 [1997]). Plaintiff failed to present any competent evidence to demonstrate that the firm that represented him in a real estate transaction, defendant Alouidor & Associates, P.C., did not exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession and that the attorney’s breach of this duty proximately caused plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages (see Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442 [2007]).

Even accepting plaintiff’s contention that the law firm defendant breached the specific provision of the retainer agreement requiring “representation at closing” (see generally Goldfarb v Hoffman, 139 AD3d 474, 475 [2016]), plaintiff failed to establish that the breach was the [*2]proximate cause of the damages complained of – the cost to replace the roof of the property purchased. Nor in any event did plaintiff show that a defect in the roof existed at the time of closing or that a complete replacement of the roof was required.”