Attorneys can easily be substituted in and out of cases, and personal injury matters are no exception. When client goes from attorney 1 to attorney 2 to attorney 3 the outlook for the case may sometimes be good, and in this case bad. Client was involved in a car accident, and hired attorney 1 to handle the case. Attorney 1 did so, but apparently never looked to see who owned the car. Owner was a rental car company, with apparent unlimited liability and assets. Attorney 2 takes over the case and finds out at a deposition that defendant did not own the car. Attorney 2 takes their time and does nothing. Attorney 2 is substituted out and Attorney 3 immediately makes a motion to add the owner. Attorney 3 does not succeed. is there a good cause of action against attorney 2? The statute of limitations is long over for attorney 1. Answer ? No. in Snolis v Clare
2011 NY Slip Op 01455 ;  Appellate Division, Second Department
the Court writes:

"The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law because they failed to establish that any negligence on the part of the defendants in failing to move for leave to amend the complaint in the personal injury action to add the owner as a defendant, immediately upon learning of the owner’s identity, was the proximate cause of their alleged damages (see Greene v Sager, 78 AD3d 777; Erdman v Dell, 50 AD3d 627; see also Buran v Coupal, 87 NY2d 173, 180; Flederbach v Fayman, 57 AD3d 474). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs’ motion.

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying, as untimely, that branch of the defendants’ cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. While the defendants’ cross motion was made more than 120 days after the note of issue was filed and, therefore, was untimely (see Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648), an untimely cross motion for summary judgment may be considered by the court where, as here, a timely motion for summary judgment was made on nearly identical grounds (see Grande v Peteroy, 39 AD3d 590, 592; Lennard v Khan, 69 AD3d 812, 814; Bressingham v Jamaica Hosp. Med. Ctr., 17 AD3d 496, 497). In such circumstances, the issues raised by the untimely cross motion are already properly before the court and, thus, the nearly identical nature of the grounds may provide the requisite good cause (see CPLR 3212[a]) to review the merits of the untimely cross motion (see Grande v Peteroy, 39 AD3d at 592). Notably, a court, in deciding the timely motion, may search the record and award summary judgment to a nonmoving party (see CPLR 3212[b]).

The defendants demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the legal malpractice cause of action insofar as asserted against them by demonstrating that any negligence on their part did not proximately cause the plaintiffs’ alleged damages (see Von Duerring v Hession & Bekoff, 71 AD3d 760). It is true that the more than one-year delay in moving for leave to amend the complaint in the personal injury action to add the owner as a defendant, which was attributable to the defendants’ failure to seek that relief, prejudiced the owner and, thus, was a sufficient basis for denying the motion for leave to amend the complaint in the personal injury action (see Snolis v Biondo, 21 AD3d 546). However, the defendants demonstrated that even if they had expeditiously made such a motion in April 2003, immediately upon learning of the owner’s identity, the motion could not have been granted. "