MERLIN BIOMED ASSET v. WOLF BLOCK SCHORR

The motion court properly concluded that plaintiffs were required to offer expert testimony in support of their claim for legal malpractice that raises issues regarding the standard of care of an attorney drafting purchasing and marketing agreements in the field of hedge funds and financial management companies, a subject that is not part of the jurors' ordinary, daily experience ( see Schadoff v. Russ, 278 AD2d 222). Defendants' expert submission was sufficient to meet their burden that they did not depart from the applicable standard of care ( see id.). Since plaintiffs failed to offer expert testimony on the subject, they failed to raise an issue of fact and partial summary judgment was properly granted defendants ( see id.; Zeller v. Copps, 294 AD2d 683, 684).