In D’Adamo v Cohen 2024 NY Slip Op 05956 Decided on November 27, 2024
Appellate Division, Second Department a legal malpractice case was dismissed because the allegations were too “conclusory,”

“In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Alexandra D. Murphy, J.), dated July 27, 2022. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the cause of action alleging legal malpractice.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.”

“A plaintiff must plead “actual, ascertainable damages as a result of an attorney’s negligence. Mere speculation about a loss resulting from an attorney’s alleged omission is insufficient to sustain a prima facie case of legal malpractice” (Dempster v Liotti, 86 AD3d at 177 [citation, alterations, and internal quotation marks omitted]; see Philip S. Schwartzman, Inc. v Pliskin, Rubano, Baum & Vitulli, 215 AD3d 699, 703). “Conclusory allegations of damages or injuries predicated on speculation cannot suffice for a malpractice action, and dismissal is warranted where the allegations in the complaint are merely conclusory and speculative” (Alexim Holdings, LLC v McAuliffe, 221 AD3d 641, 643 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see York v Frank, 209 AD3d 804, 807).

Here, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to dismiss the cause of action alleging legal malpractice. The plaintiffs’ claims regarding the consequences and damages flowing from the defendants’ alleged failure to request that a title company provide a title report by a certain date are conclusory and speculative (see May Dock Lane, LLC v Harras Bloom & Archer, LLP, 222 AD3d at 637; 126 Main St., LLC v Kriegsman, 218 AD3d 524, 525; Sierra Holdings, LLC v Phillips, Weiner, Quinn, Artura & Cox, 112 AD3d 909, 910).”