Opinion
10140 Index 21446/18E
10-22-2019
Jose BAUTISTA, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. HACH & ROSE, LLP, Defendant–Appellant, Hach Rose Schirripa & Cheverie LLP, et al., Defendants.
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, New York (Judy C. Selmeci of counsel), for appellant. Massimo & Panetta, P.C., Mineola (Nicholas J. Massimo of counsel), for respondent.
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, New York (Judy C. Selmeci of counsel), for appellant.
Massimo & Panetta, P.C., Mineola (Nicholas J. Massimo of counsel), for respondent.
Acosta, P.J., Richter, Mazzarelli, Webber, Kern, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lucindo Suarez, J.), entered October 26, 2018, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant Hach & Rose, LLP's (defendant) motion to dismiss plaintiff's cause of action for legal malpractice against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
We decline to entertain defendant's arguments, which were improperly raised for the first time on appeal.
Were we to reach those arguments, we would nevertheless find that plaintiff's allegations supported an inference of proximate causation and the documentary evidence did not refute thoseallegations ( CPLR 3211[a][1], [7] ; Brooks v. Lewin, 21 A.D.3d 731, 734, 800 N.Y.S.2d 695 [1st Dept. 2005], lv denied 6 N.Y.3d 713, 816 N.Y.S.2d 749, 849 N.E.2d 972 [2006] ; cf. Somma v. Dansker & Aspromonte Assoc., 44 A.D.3d 376, 377, 843 N.Y.S.2d 577 [1st Dept. 2007] ; Alden v. Brindisi, Murad, Brindisi, Pearlman, Julian & Pertz ["The People's Lawyer"], 91 A.D.3d 1311, 1311, 937 N.Y.S.2d 784 [4th Dept. 2012] ).