David A. Kaminsky & Assoc., PC v Brenner  2019 NY Slip Op 51028(U)  Decided on June 24, 2019  Appellate Term, First Department presents an unusual situation.  The Appellate Term recognizes that there is a viable legal malpractice claim, but allows summary judgment on fees to be affirmed.

“We sustain the grant of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this action for unpaid legal fees. Plaintiff submitted evidence establishing the reasonable value of its services (see Kwangjin Song v Woods Oviatt Gilman LLP, 55 AD3d 1278 [2008]) and defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to plaintiff’s entitlement to the fees sought (see DiPlacidi v Walsh, 243 AD2d 335 [1997]; Pirro & Monsell v Freddolino, 204 AD2d 613 [1994], lv dismissed 85 NY2d 903 [1995]). Nor is summary judgment precluded by defendant’s legal malpractice counterclaim, since the record shows that plaintiff performed a great deal of work that was unrelated to the isolated malpractice claim found viable by the court (see Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady, LLP v Rose, 111 AD3d 453 [2013], lv denied 23 NY3d 904 [2014]; Morrison Cohen Singer & Weinstein v Ackerman, 280 AD2d 355, 356 [2001]).”