Marshall v. Nacht
| Decision Date | 22 April 1991 |
| Citation | 172 A.D.2d 727,569 N.Y.S.2d 113 |
| Parties | Travis MARSHALL, Appellant, v. Steven B. NACHT, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Allen J. Hershberg, New York City, for appellant.
Deegan & Scibilia, Hempstead (Joseph R. Crafa, of counsel), for respondent.
Before THOMPSON, J.P., and BROWN, EIBER and O'BRIEN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Corrado, J.), dated November 13, 1989, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs; and it is further,
ORDERED that the attorneys for the parties are directed to appear at this court on May 15, 1991, at 12:00 Noon, to be heard, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(c), upon the issue of the imposition of appropriate sanctions or costs, if any.
Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant summary judgment dismissing the complaint. In order to establish a prima facie case of legal malpractice, a client must demonstrate that his attorney failed to exercise that degree of skill commonly exercised by an ordinary member of the legal community, and that he incurred damages as a direct result of his attorney's actions (see, Marquez v. Ross Dev., 162 A.D.2d 1011, 557 N.Y.S.2d 802). An action to recover damages for legal malpractice thus requires proof of three essential elements: (1) a duty, (2) a breach of the duty, and (3) proof that actual damages were proximately caused by the breach of the duty (see, Murphy v. Stein, 156 A.D.2d 546, 549 N.Y.S.2d 53; Mendoza v. Schlossman, 87 A.D.2d 606, 448 N.Y.S.2d 45). The issue of proximate cause cannot, however, be left to speculation, and the record at bar amply supports the Supreme Court's conclusion that any damages allegedly incurred by the plaintiff were not the result of any acts or omissions by the defendant attorney. In this regard, we note that the plaintiff himself at his deposition entirely refuted his claim that the defendant attorney's malpractice prevented him from continuing his studies at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, and obtaining a college degree. Consequently, the plaintiff's action was properly dismissed (see, Marquez v. Ross Dev., supra; Murphy v. Stein, supra; Ressis v. Wojick, 105 A.D.2d 565, 481 N.Y.S.2d 507).
Moreover, upon our review of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lee v. Ahne Law, P.C. (In re Basic Food Grp., LLC)
...caused by the breach of the duty.'") (quoting Tinelli v. Redl, 199 F.3d 603, 606 (2d Cir. 1999) (quoting Marshall v. Nacht, 172 A.D.2d 727, 569 N.Y.S.2d 113, 114 (2d Dep't 1991))). The Plaintiffs contend that the Court must deny the Motion because Ahne committed malpractice when he (i) fail......
-
Hatfield v. Herz
...caused by the breach of the duty.'" Tinelli v. Redl, 199 F.3d 603, 606 (2d Cir.1999) (per curiam) (quoting Marshall v. Nacht, 172 A.D.2d 727, 569 N.Y.S.2d 113, 114 (2d Dep't 1991)). It is not disputed by the parties that Herz, as Hatfield's counsel, owed him a duty of care. To succeed on hi......
-
Ocean Ships, Inc. v. Stiles
...proximately caused by the breach of the duty.'" Tinelli v. Redl, 199 F.3d 603, 606 (2d Cir.1999) (quoting Marshall v. Nacht, 172 A.D.2d 727, 569 N.Y.S.2d 113, 114 (2d Dep't 1991)). 1. Duty and As the district court observed, "New York courts have held both implicitly and explicitly that fai......
-
Rubens v. Mason
...proximately caused by the breach of the duty.'" Tinelli v. Redl, 199 F.3d 603, 606 (2d Cir.1999) (quoting Marshall v. Nacht, 172 A.D.2d 727, 569 N.Y.S.2d 113, 114 (2d Dep't 1991)). On a motion for summary judgment in a legal malpractice action, a defendant may prevail by demonstrating the p......