The motion court correctly held that the complaint fails to set forth nonconclusory factual allegations of causation with respect to any of plaintiff's claims of malpractice ( see Between The Bread Realty Corp. v. Salans Hertzfeld Heilbronn Christy Viener, 290 AD2d 380, 381, lv denied 98 NY2d 603). The deficiencies in the complaint were not cured by counsel's affirmation in opposition, which was entirely conclusory with respect to the value of plaintiff's injuries ( see Lindenman v. Kreitzer, 7 AD3d 30, 34-35). We would further note with respect to plaintiff's claim that he was "denied his share of the [aggregate] settlement in the underlying action" because of defendants' malpractice in undertaking to represent conflicting interests "in group or block settlement negotiations," the claim appears to involve not the amount of the settlement but rather plaintiff's rightful share thereof, and that a timely motion by defendants to withdraw once it became clear that the plaintiffs in the underlying action could not agree on a division of the settlement proceeds was opposed by plaintiff and denied.