From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Siwiec v. Rawlins

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Feb 13, 2013
103 A.D.3d 703 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)

Opinion

2013-02-13

Danuta SIWIEC, appellant, v. Gary N. RAWLINS, et al., respondents.

Greenberg Freeman, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Michael A. Freeman of counsel), for appellant. Furman Kornfeld & Brennan, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Joshua B. Sandberg of counsel), for respondents Gary N. Rawlins and The Rawlins Law Firm, PLLC.



Greenberg Freeman, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Michael A. Freeman of counsel), for appellant. Furman Kornfeld & Brennan, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Joshua B. Sandberg of counsel), for respondents Gary N. Rawlins and The Rawlins Law Firm, PLLC.
Craig F. Wilson, New York, N.Y., respondent pro se.

MARK C. DILLON, J.P., DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, THOMAS A. DICKERSON, and SYLVIA HINDS–RADIX, JJ.

In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Martin, J.), dated December 22, 2011, which granted the motion of the defendants Gary N. Rawlins and The Rawlins Law Firm, PLLC, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them, denied her cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3215(a) for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendant Craig F. Wilson, and granted the cross motion of the defendant Craig F. Wilson pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the defendants appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

“When a party moves to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the standard is whether the pleading states a cause of action, not whether the proponent of the pleading has a cause of action” ( Sokol v. Leader, 74 A.D.3d 1180, 1180–1181, 904 N.Y.S.2d 153). In determining such a motion, the court must “accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory” ( Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83, 87–88, 614 N.Y.S.2d 972, 638 N.E.2d 511).

“ ‘To state a cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must allege: (1) that the attorney failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession; and (2) that the attorney's breach of the duty proximately caused the plaintiff actual and ascertainable damages' ” ( Held v. Seidenberg, 87 A.D.3d 616, 617, 928 N.Y.S.2d 477, quoting Dempster v. Liotti, 86 A.D.3d 169, 176, 924 N.Y.S.2d 484). To establish causation, a plaintiff must show that he or she would have prevailed in the underlying action or would not have incurred any damages but for the attorney's negligence ( see Rudolf v. Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 N.Y.3d 438, 441, 835 N.Y.S.2d 534, 867 N.E.2d 385;Rosenbaum v. Sheresky Aronson Mayefsky & Sloan, LLP, 100 A.D.3d 731, 954 N.Y.S.2d 123). Conclusory allegations of damages or injuries which are predicated on speculation are insufficient ( see Wald v. Berwitz, 62 A.D.3d 786, 787, 880 N.Y.S.2d 293).

Here, the complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to establish that the underlying action would have been successful or that the defendants proximately caused the plaintiff to sustain damages ( see Hallman v. Kantor, 72 A.D.3d 895, 897, 901 N.Y.S.2d 284;Wald v. Berwitz, 62 A.D.3d at 787, 880 N.Y.S.2d 293;Simmons v. Edelstein, 32 A.D.3d 464, 465–466, 820 N.Y.S.2d 614). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the motion of the defendants Gary N. Rawlins and The Rawlins Law Firm, PLLC, and the cross motion of the defendant Craig F. Wilson, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Further, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff's cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3215(a) for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendant Craig F. Wilson ( see Feder v. Eline Capital Corp., 80 A.D.3d 554, 914 N.Y.S.2d 659;Giha v. Giannos Enters., Inc., 69 A.D.3d 564, 565, 891 N.Y.S.2d 288).

The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.


Summaries of

Siwiec v. Rawlins

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Feb 13, 2013
103 A.D.3d 703 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
Case details for

Siwiec v. Rawlins

Case Details

Full title:Danuta SIWIEC, appellant, v. Gary N. RAWLINS, et al., respondents.

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Feb 13, 2013

Citations

103 A.D.3d 703 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
959 N.Y.S.2d 516
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 903

Citing Cases

Robert Iannucci, Sonia Ewers, Clocktower Props. & Team Obsolete Promotions, Inc. v. Kucker & Bruh, LLP

Indeed, plaintiff's claim of the loss of rental income from potential future tenants is based on speculation.…

Noel v. Law Office of Mark E. Feinberg

Further, "'[a]n attorney may be liable for his ignorance of the rules of practice, for his failure to comply…