DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order entered October 24, 2002, is affirmed; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order entered February 11, 2003, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
ORDERED that the one bill of costs is awarded to the defendants.
Upon the defendants' prima facie showing that the plaintiffs failed to prove at least one of the three essential elements of a legal malpractice cause of action ( see Ostriker v. Taylor, Atkins Ostrow, 258 A.D.2d 572), the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320) . The plaintiffs' claims amounted to nothing more than their dissatisfaction with the defendants' strategic choices, and thus, did not support a malpractice claim as a matter of law ( see Bernstein v. Oppenheim Co., 160 A.D.2d 428; see also Iannacone v. Weidman, 273 A.D.2d 275). In any event, the record demonstrates that the plaintiffs' claims for damages were speculative and incapable of being proven ( see Brooklyn Law School v. Great N. Ins. Co., 283 A.D.2d 383; Giambrone v. Bank of N.Y., 253 A.D.2d 786).
The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs' subsequent motion for leave to renew. The plaintiffs failed to offer a valid excuse for not submitting the additional facts upon the original motion ( see LaRosa v. Trapani, 271 A.D.2d 506).
SANTUCCI, J.P., KRAUSMAN, SCHMIDT and RIVERA, JJ., concur.