Allegedly on plaintiff's advice, defendants terminated the employment of a minority shareholder of a close corporation, who brought a successful shareholder oppression proceeding (see, Matter of Dissolution of HGK Asset Mgt., 228 A.D.2d 246 and 238 A.D.2d 291). When defendants refused to pay plaintiff's bill, the parties, having reached agreement as to the amount owed plaintiff in the event defendants' malpractice claim was rejected, stipulated that the malpractice claim would be the only issue submitted to the jury. The resulting verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. The trial evidence, fairly interpreted, supports the jury's evident rejection of the defense contentions, that but for the plaintiffs' advice (see, Taylor v. Sullivan, 205 A.D.2d 416, 417), defendants would have been spared some loss or expense compensable in damages (see, Unger v. Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton Garrison, 265 A.D.2d 156, 157). The evidence, including the expert testimony, which the jury was entitled to reject even though it was unopposed, (see, Ares v. State of New York, 176 A.D.2d 203, affd 80 N.Y.2d 959), did not require a finding that, in advising defendants, the lawyers of plaintiff law firm disregarded settled law (see, Darby Darby, P.C. v. VSI Intl., 95 N.Y.2d 308, 313) and would have permitted the jury to conclude that the advice itself was not the proximate cause of defendants' losses (see, Sumo Container Sta., Inc., v. Evans, Orr, Pacelli, Norton Laffan, P.C., 278 A.D.2d 169, 171-172).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.