Opinion
June 25, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Essex County (Viscardi, J.).
We reject plaintiff's contention that Supreme Court erred in granting defendants' motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff's suit against defendants was based on the allegation that they committed legal malpractice by permitting the Statute of Limitations for a medical malpractice action to expire. In their motions for summary judgment, however, defendants contended that no attorney-client relationship existed between themselves and plaintiff. The evidence submitted in support of the motions showed that although defendants were contacted by plaintiff regarding the malpractice claim, there was never any agreement to undertake representation of plaintiff. Having demonstrated their entitlement to summary relief, it was up to plaintiff, as the party opposing the motions, to demonstrate the existence of factual issues (see, Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557; Carey v. Campbell, 93 A.D.2d 923). This he failed to do. Plaintiff's claims were nothing more than conclusory allegations and he failed to submit any evidentiary proof to show that such a relationship existed (see, Mills v. Pappas, 174 A.D.2d 780, appeal dismissed 78 N.Y.2d 1121; cf., Gardner v. Jacon, 148 A.D.2d 794).
Weiss, P.J., Yesawich Jr., Levine, Mahoney and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs.