Ackerman v Nathan L. Dembin & Assoc., P.C. |
2021 NY Slip Op 03108 [194 AD3d 512] |
May 13, 2021 |
Appellate Division, First Department |
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
Paul Ackerman, M.D., Appellant, v Nathan L. Dembin & Associates, P.C., et al., Respondents. |
Andrew Lavoott Bluestone, New York, for appellant.
O'Toole Scrivo, LLC, New York (Young Yu of counsel), for respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Gerald Lebovits, J.), entered July 22, 2020, which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
To recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiff must establish that the attorney (1) "failed to exercise that degree of care, skill and diligence commonly possessed and exercised by a member of the legal community" and (2) that "such negligence was a proximate cause of the loss in question" (Barbara King Family Trust v Voluto Ventures LLC, 46 AD3d 423, 424 [1st Dept 2007]). The evidence submitted with the motion establishes that defendants' advice to plaintiff to enter into a consent order to resolve the charges against him was reasonable (see Brookwood Cos., Inc. v Alston & Bird LLP, 146 AD3d 662, 667 [1st Dept 2017]), and plaintiff has failed to raise an issue of fact surrounding proximate cause (see Hudson Yards LLC v Segal, 188 AD3d 419 [1st Dept 2020]). We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Renwick, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Kennedy, Shulman, JJ. [Prior Case History: 68 Misc 3d 1202(A), 2020 NY Slip Op 50831(U).]