Legal malpractice cases require that one prove a departure, a proximate cause, that but for the mistake there would have been a better and different outcome and ascertainable damages.  In Angeles v Aronsky   2012 NY Slip Op 30851(U)  April 2, 2012  Sup Ct, NY County  Docket Number: 100091/2009  Judge: Judith J. Gische  we see how a plaintiff avoids summary judgment on a premises security case.

"Plaintiff alleges that, on December 7, 2007, he was assaulted in the lobby of a building (the Building), located at 1745 Caton Avenue, Brooklyn, New York, in which he was a tenant
and that he hired defendant to represent him in prosecuting his claim (the Underlying Claim) (complaint, 1’8 1, 4 ) . Plaintiff contends that defendant never commenced an action against the
Building’s owner, defendant did not conduct an adequate investigation of the circumstances of the incident, and he was induced by defendant to settle the Underlying Claim against the Building’s owner for $8500, although this was inadequate compensation in light of the severity of his injuries which included having both his arms broken, a broken Jaw and broken ribs (id., 77 10, 17-18).

Defendant asserts that plaintiff voluntarily agreed to the settlement of the Underlying claim, that the Underlying Claim had significant liability problems, warranting a low settlement amount, since plaintiff stated that the door lock leading into the lobby area of the Building was in working order on the day of the incident, that the alleged assailants were unknown and that there were no prior similar incidents in the Building (defendant affidavit, g l 14, S – 6 ) .

Applying the above mentioned legal principles to this motion, defendant’s motion for summary judgment must be denied. Defendant states that a successful result in the Underlying Claim could not be established since plaintiff stated that the door locks were functioning properly on the day of the incident and plaintiff did not know who attacked him (plaintiff EBT, at 17, 19). Plaintiff has, however, presented evidence of accessibility to the Buildings’through a side entrance and that
three men with baseball bats were seen leaving the Building around the time of the alleged assault on plaintiff (Sosa BET, at 52, 54, 59; Luna EBT, at 20-21). since the Court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff on this motion (Branham v Loews Orpheum Cinemas, Inc., 8 NY3d 931, 932 [2007), plaintiff has raised a factual issue as to the accessibility to the Building through  the unlocked aide entrance (Burgos, 92 NY2d at 551).

 Plaintiff has also presented evidence of a factual issue as to the adequacy of defendant’s investigation into the circumstances of the Underlying claim since neither defendant nor his investigator went to the Building or spoke with the Building’s superintendent and, accordingly, they did not obtain Information about the aide entrance and its accessibility (defendant EBT, at 51-52). Defendant also failed to seek information as to prior similar incidents in the area which would be relevant to foreseeability (fa. at 5 8 ) .