Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff retained the defendant to represent him in a federal action, wherein the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, inter alia, imposed a monetary sanction in the sum of $5,000 against the plaintiff for discovery abuses. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant's mishandling of the federal action resulted in the imposition of the monetary sanction.
"To establish a cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must prove (1) that the defendant attorney failed to exercise that degree of care, skill, and diligence commonly possessed by a member of the legal community, (2) proximate cause, (3) damages, and (4) that the plaintiff would have been successful in the underlying action had the attorney exercised due care" ( Iannarone v. Gramer, 256 AD2d 443, 444; see Blank v. Harry Katz, P.C., 3 AD3d 512, 513). While the issue of whether certain conduct constitutes legal malpractice is generally a factual determination to be made by the jury, a plaintiff will be entitled to summary judgment in a case where there is no conflict at all in the evidence, the defendant's conduct fell below any permissible standard of due care, and the plaintiff's conduct was not really involved ( see Logalbo v. Plishkin, Rubano Baum, 163 AD2d 511, 514).
Here, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence sufficient to establish, as a matter of law, that his conduct in prosecuting the federal action did not contribute to the imposition of the monetary sanction ( see generally Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied his motion.