Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
On a cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant failed to exercise the care, skill, and diligence commonly possessed and exercised by a member of the legal profession, that the defendant's negligence was a proximate cause of the loss sustained, that the plaintiff incurred actual damages as a result of the defendant's actions or inaction, and that but for the defendant's negligence, the plaintiff would have prevailed in the underlying action or would not have sustained any damages ( see Arnav Indus., Inc. Retirement Trust v. Brown, Raysman, Millstein, Felder Steiner, 96 NY2d 300, 303-304; Magnacoustics, Inc. v. Ostrolenk, Faber, Gerb Soffen, 303 AD2d 561, 562). For a defendant in a legal malpractice case to succeed on a motion for summary judgment, evidence must be presented in admissible form establishing that the plaintiff is unable to prove at least one of the essential elements ( see Crawford v. McBride, 303 AD2d 442).
The defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting admissible evidence showing that the alleged malpractice was not a proximate cause of the plaintiff's damages resulting from the adverse judgment in the underlying Surrogate's Court proceedings. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and dismissed the complaint ( see Crawford v. McBride, supra).