From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Purificati v. Meyer Diesenhouse

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 27, 1997
243 A.D.2d 697 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

October 27, 1997

Appeal Supreme Court, Queens County (Goldstein, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

For the defendants in a legal malpractice case to succeed on a motion for summary judgment, they must present evidence in admissible form establishing that the plaintiff is unable to prove one of the three essential elements of a malpractice cause of action ( see, Greene v. Payne, Wood Littlejohn, 197 A.D.2d 664; see also, Platt v. Portnoy, 220 A.D.2d 652; Andrews Beverage Distrib. v. Stern, 215 A.D.2d 706; L.I.C. Commercial Corp. v Rosenthal, 202 A.D.2d 644). Here, the respondents made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff could not prove that but for any negligence he would have prevailed in the underlying action, and the plaintiff failed to submit any admissible evidence to the contrary. Thus, the trial court properly granted summary judgment to the defendants.

O'Brien, J.P., Santucci, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Purificati v. Meyer Diesenhouse

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 27, 1997
243 A.D.2d 697 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Purificati v. Meyer Diesenhouse

Case Details

Full title:JOHN PURIFICATI, Appellant, v. MEYER DIESENHOUSE et al., Defendants and…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Oct 27, 1997

Citations

243 A.D.2d 697 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
665 N.Y.S.2d 308

Citing Cases

M.H. KANE CONSTRUCTION CORP. v. LIEB

To show proximate cause, the plaintiff must establish that but for the attorney's negligence, the plaintiff…

Lefkowitz v. Lurie

This motion was erroneously denied by the Supreme Court. It is well settled that a claim of legal malpractice…