Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011

Held v. Seidenberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided August 16, 2011

87 A.D.3d 616; 928 N.Y.2d 477

Cases that cite this one

17 later published cases cite this decision.

Leiner v. Hauser (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Kahlon v. DeSantis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
Maroulis v. Sari M. Friedman, P.C. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
Mackey Reed Electric, Inc. v. Morrone & Associates, P.C. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Portilla v. Law Offices of Arcia & Flanagan (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Stein v. Chiera (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Stein v. Chiera (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Benishai v. Epstein (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Benishai v. Epstein (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Siwiec v. Rawlins (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Siwiec v. Rawlins (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Keness v. Feldman, Kramer & Monaco, P.C. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Keness v. Feldman, Kramer & Monaco, P.C. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Cascardo v. Snitow Kanfer Holtzer & Millus, LLP (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Cascardo v. Snitow Kanfer Holtzer & Millus, LLP (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Rosenbaum v. Sheresky Aronson Mayefsky & Sloan, LLP (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Rosenbaum v. Sheresky Aronson Mayefsky & Sloan, LLP (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

On a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) for failure to state a cause of action, the court must accept the facts alleged in the pleading as true, accord the plaintiff *617the benefit of every possible inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory (see Goshen v Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 98 NY2d 314, 326 [2002]; Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87 [1994]). “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” (Dempster v Liotti, 86 AD3d 169, 176 [2011], quoting Leder v Spiegel, 9 NY3d 836, 837 [2007], cert denied sub nom. Spiegel v Rowland, 552 US 1257 [2008]; see Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442 [2007]).

Here, the complaint, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff (see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d at 87-88), failed to set forth allegations sufficient to state a cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice (see Kennedy v H. Bruce Fischer, Esq., P.C., 78 AD3d 1016, 1018 [2010]; DeNatale v Santangelo, 65 AD3d 1006 [2009]; Analisa Salon, Ltd. v Elide Props., LLC, 63 AD3d 1091 [2009]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) for failure to state a cause of action. Skelos, J.E, Belen, Hall and Roman, JJ., concur. [Prior Case History: 27 Misc 3d 1235(A), 2010 NY Slip Op 51041(U).]

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.