The motion court properly determined that plaintiff failed to state a cause of action for legal malpractice. The documentary evidence established that plaintiffs successor counsel had sufficient time and opportunity to adequately protect plaintiffs rights. Indeed, plaintiffs English counsel timely commenced a lawsuit in England based on the underlying motor vehicle accident that occurred in England. Accordingly, defendants' alleged negligence cannot be considered a proximate cause of plaintiffs alleged injury ( see Somma v Dansker Aspromonte Assoc, 44 AD3d 376).
The court also properly dismissed plaintiffs claim under Judiciary Law § 487. Plaintiffs allegations of deceit are belied by the record, and she failed to allege that she sustained damages as a result of defendants' conduct ( see Havell v Islam, 292 AD2d 210).
We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing.