Merely repeating that plaintiffs were unable to prove the element of causation, without explaining why, in Howlader v Aranow Law, P.C. 2025 NY Slip Op 05505 Decided on October 8, 2025 Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed denial of summary judgment to plaintiff and the grant of summary judgment to defendants.

“In this legal malpractice action, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants failed to properly counsel the plaintiffs on pre-bankruptcy planning. The plaintiffs asserted that, as a consequence of the defendants’ negligence, a bankruptcy trustee challenged the plaintiffs’ claimed homestead exemption under section 282 of the Debtor and Creditor Law, resulting in the plaintiffs entering into a court-approved stipulation of settlement with the bankruptcy trustee at a cost of $130,000. The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability, and the defendants cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. In an order entered February 6, 2024, the Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion and granted the defendants’ cross-motion. The plaintiffs appeal.”

“Here, the Supreme Court properly determined that the defendants established, prima facie, that the plaintiffs would be unable to prove the element of causation (see 11 USC §§ 522[o]; 548[a][1][A]; Debtor and Creditor Law § 282[i]; see generally Valley Ventures, LLC v Joseph J. Haspel, PLLC, 102 AD3d 955, 956). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

“Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and properly denied the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.”