Plaintiffs' malpractice cause against defendants, alleging that defendants, while representing plaintiffs in a personal injury action, improvidently settled the action for less than it was worth, was properly dismissed, since the proof before the motion court was insufficient to raise a triable issue as to whether plaintiffs would have received a higher amount but for the purported improprieties leading to the complained of settlement (see, Sumo Container Station, Inc. v. Evans, Orr, Pacelli, Norton Laffan, P.C., 278 A.D.2d 169; Colleran v. Rockman, 275 A.D.2d 222). Mere speculation that the action was worth more than the settlement amount of $140,000 was insufficient to sustain the legal malpractice claim (see, Pellegrino v. File, ___ A.D.2d ___, 738 N.Y.S.2d 320). Also properly dismissed was the claim pursuant to Judiciary Law § 487 since there was no proof that plaintiffs, in settling the personal injury action, sustained damages by reason of defendants' conduct (see, Havell v. Islam, ___ A.D.2d ___, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2408), and plaintiffs' breach of contract claim was properly dismissed as redundant of their malpractice claim (see,Pellegrino v. File, supra).
Leave to amend was properly denied since the proposed amendments did not render plaintiffs' claims legally viable (see, Linear Trading Co. v. Braddis Assocs., Inc., 243 A.D.2d 107, 116).
Motion seeking leave to dismiss appeal as against defendant Rubinstein granted.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.