In an action for legal malpractice, "a plaintiff must demonstrate that [he or she] would have succeeded on the merits of the underlying action but for the attorney's negligence" ( Davis v Klein, 88 NY2d 1008, 1009-1010; see Dweck Law Firm v Mann, 283 AD2d 292, 293). An attorney's "selection of one among several reasonable courses of action does not constitute malpractice" ( Rosner v Paley, 65 NY2d 736, 738).
Defendant established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the associate who represented plaintiffs in the underlying arbitration was pursuing a reasonable strategy in not submitting repair bills and photographs that depicted damage consistent with the uninsured driver's testimony ( see Noone v Stieglitz, 59 AD3d 505; Iocovello v Weingrad Weingrad, 4 AD3d 208). In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Plaintiffs argument that the damage depicted in the photographs would have led the arbitrator to conclude that the uninsured driver was speeding is insufficient speculation ( see Alter Alter v Cannella, 284 AD2d 138, 139.]; John P. Tilden, Ltd. v Profeta Eisenstein, 236 AD2d 292).