In this legal malpractice action based upon defendants' failure to timely commence her personal injury action arising from her fall down the stairs of an elevated subway station in the Bronx, allegedly "due to the lack of lighting of any kind," plaintiff's averment in support of her motion for summary judgment as to defendants' "but for" causation of her loss was purely conclusory. ("It is my belief that but for the failure of the defendants . . . I would have been able to prevail . . . and would have received a verdict in my favor if I had gone to trial"). Thus, inasmuch as plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment, the question of the sufficiency of the opposition to raise a triable issue of fact was never triggered. We have considered plaintiff-respondent's points regarding alleged procedural and appealability issues and find no procedural or jurisdictional bar to the present relief.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.