Opinion
No. 2020-06822 Index No. 706776/14
05-31-2023
John Gardner, respondent, v. Sacco & Fillas, LLP, et al., appellants, et al., defendants.
Sacco & Fillas, LLP, Astoria, NY (James R. Baez of counsel), appellant pro se and for appellants Tonino Sacco, Elias N. Fillas, and Lamont Rodgers. Ronemus & Vilensky, LLP, New York, NY (Robert Vilensky and Nadia Y. Lescott of counsel), for respondent.
Sacco & Fillas, LLP, Astoria, NY (James R. Baez of counsel), appellant pro se and for appellants Tonino Sacco, Elias N. Fillas, and Lamont Rodgers.
Ronemus & Vilensky, LLP, New York, NY (Robert Vilensky and Nadia Y. Lescott of counsel), for respondent.
VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., REINALDO E. RIVERA, WILLIAM G. FORD, JANICE A. TAYLOR, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for legal malpractice, the defendants Sacco & Fillas, LLP, Tonino Sacco, Elias N. Fillas, and Lamont Rodgers appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Pam Jackman Brown, J.), entered September 1, 2020. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the motion of the defendants Sacco & Fillas, LLP, Tonino Sacco, Elias N. Fillas, and Lamont Rodgers for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
In September 2014, the plaintiff commenced this action against, among others, the defendants Sacco & Fillas, LLP, Tonino Sacco, Elias N. Fillas, and Lamont Rodgers (hereinafter collectively the Sacco defendants), inter alia, to recover damages for legal malpractice, alleging that he incurred damages as a result of the Sacco defendants' failure to timely file a personal injury action on his behalf. The Sacco defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. In an order entered September 1, 2020, the Supreme Court, among other things, denied the Sacco defendants' motion. The Sacco defendants appeal.
"To succeed on a motion for summary judgment dismissing a legal malpractice action, a defendant must present evidence in admissible form establishing that at least one of the essential elements of legal malpractice cannot be satisfied" (Schmidt v Burner, 202 A.D.3d 1117, 1119; see Buczek v Dell & Little, LLP, 127 A.D.3d 1121, 1123). "Those elements require a showing that (1) the attorney failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession and (2) the attorney's breach of this duty proximately caused the plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages" (Aqua-Trol Corp. v Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, P.A., 197 A.D.3d 544, 545; see Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 N.Y.3d 438, 442).
Here, the Supreme Court properly denied the Sacco defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. The Sacco defendants failed to submit evidence establishing, prima facie, the absence of at least one essential element of the legal malpractice cause of action (see Aqua-Trol Corp. v Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, P.A., 197 A.D.3d at 545; Fricano v Law Offs. of Tisha Adams, LLC, 194 A.D.3d 1016, 1018; Ferrigno v Jaghab, Jaghab & Jaghab, P.C., 152 A.D.3d 650, 652; Atiencia v Pinczewski, 148 A.D.3d 860, 861). Since the Sacco defendants failed to make their prima facie showing, we do not need to consider the sufficiency of the plaintiff's opposition papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853).
BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., RIVERA, FORD and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.