Servider v Law Offs. of Cervini, Ronemus & Vilensky 2024 NY Slip Op 30160(U)
January 12, 2024 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 161166/2022 Judge: Mary V. Rosado is a pro-se legal malpractice case which comes after plaintiff has settled a case, and then wriggled to get out of the settlement. These legal malpractice cases rarely succeed, especially after a settlement.

“Beginning in October 2014, Plaintiff retained Cervini to represent him in an action
captioned Philip Servinder et al v. The City of New York, Index No. 160683/2014 (the “Underlying Matter”) to recover damages for alleged personal injuries he suffered while working for the New York City Sanitation Department (NYSCEF [)oc. IS at 5). Cervini represented Plaintiff in the Underlying Matter from October 2014 to October 2015 (NYSCEF Doc. 21). R&V were briefly retained to represent Plaintiff in the Underlying matter beginning in October 2015, pursuant to a signed Consent 10 Change of Attorney form dated October 25, 2015 (NYSCEF Doc. 18). Cervini resumed representation of Plaintiff pursuant to a subsequent Consent to Change Attorney form dated February 3, 2016 (NYSCEF Doc. 19).
The Underlying Mauer was resolved pursuant to a signed Stipulation of Settlement dated April 23, 2019 (the “Settlement Agreement”) (NYSCEF Doc. 17). Subsequently, Plaintiff fired Cervini in December 2022 and proceeded pro se in an attempt to invalidate the Settlement Agreement (NYSCEF Doc. 14 at 7). Plaintiffs motion to vacate the Stipulation of Settlement was denied by the Decision and Order of Hon. Alexander M. Tisch, J.S.C. dated May 24, 2021 and unanimously affirmed by the First Department (Servinder v City of New York, 212 AD3d 475 lst Dept 2023).”

Here, Plaintiff fails to plead that R& V’s negligence was the proximate cause of Plaintiffs
alleged loss. The First Department has held that to establish prox.in1atc cause on a claim for legal malpractice, the “plaintiff must demonstrate that but for the attorney’s negligence, [they] would have prevailed in the underlying mailer or would not have sustained any ascertainable damages” (Brooks v, Lewin, 21AD3d 73 1, 734 [1st Dept 2005]). Further, “speculation on future events are insufficient to establish that fa] defendant lawyer’s malpractice, if any, was the proximate cause of any such loss” (Id. at 735). Even given the benefit of every possible favorable inference, Plaintiffs Complaint fails to adequately allege that but for R&V’s alleged malpractice, Plaintiff
would have prevailed in his underlying actions or would not have sustained any damages. As such, R&V”s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs malpractice claims against it is granted.”