We read the AD decisions in order to educate ourselves, gain insight into how to phrase claims, how to defend claims and how to navigate the unique legal malpractice landscape. Saracino v Rosenberg, Calica & Birney, LLP 2025 NY Slip Op 06205
Decided on November 12, 2025 Appellate Division, Second Department is the reversal of a denial of summary judgment to the attorneys, but why?

“In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for legal malpractice, the defendant appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (R. Bruce Cozzens, J.), entered June 29, 2023, and (2) an order of the same court entered February 7, 2024. The order entered June 29, 2023, denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granted the plaintiffs’ cross-motion pursuant to CPLR 3025(b) for leave to amend the complaint. The order entered February 7, 2024, insofar as appealed from, upon reargument, adhered to the prior determinations in the order entered June 29, 2023, denying the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granting the plaintiffs’ cross-motion pursuant to CPLR 3025(b) for leave to amend the complaint.

ORDERED that the order entered June 29, 2023, is reversed, on the law, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted, the plaintiffs’ cross-motion pursuant to CPLR 3025(b) for leave to amend the complaint is denied, and so much of the order entered February 7, 2024, as, upon reargument, adhered to the prior determinations in the order entered June 29, 2023, denying the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granting the plaintiffs’ cross-motion pursuant to CPLR 3025(b) for leave to amend the complaint is vacated; “

Here is the complete explanation:

“A plaintiff in an action alleging legal malpractice must prove that the defendant’s failure to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession proximately caused the plaintiff to suffer damages (see Nomura Asset Capital Corp. v Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, 26 NY3d 40, 49; Casey v Exum, 219 AD3d 456, 456-457). “An attorney’s conduct or inaction is the proximate cause of a plaintiff’s damages if ‘but for’ the attorney’s negligence the plaintiff would have succeeded on the merits of the underlying action, or would not have sustained actual and ascertainable damages” (Nomura Asset Capital Corp. v Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, 26 NY3d at 50 [citation and internal quotation marks omitted]). “A defendant seeking summary judgment dismissing a legal malpractice cause of action has the burden of establishing prima facie that he or she did not fail to exercise such skill and knowledge, or that the claimed departure did not proximately cause the plaintiff to sustain damages” (Provenzano v Cellino & Barnes, P.C., 207 AD3d 763, 764 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

Here, the defendant met its burden by establishing, prima facie, that it did not fail to exercise the requisite skill and knowledge in its representation of the plaintiffs in the underlying actions. The defendant also established, prima facie, that, in any event, its alleged negligence in, inter alia, filing mechanic’s liens on behalf of the plaintiffs rather than pursuing arbitration did not proximately cause the plaintiffs’ damages.

In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Sang Seok Na v Schietroma, 163 AD3d 597, 599; Richmond Holdings, LLC v David S. Frankel, P.C., 150 AD3d 1168, 1168-1169). Moreover, the plaintiffs failed to address those branches of the defendant’s motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and violation of Judiciary Law § 487 (see Clarke v New York City Health & Hosps., 210 AD3d 631, 633; Elstein v Hammer, 192 AD3d 1075, 1079-1080).

The plaintiffs’ contention that the defendant’s motion for summary judgment was premature is without merit (see Wei Ping Zheng v Sun & Son, Inc., 233 AD3d 733). Thus, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.”