In their remaining cause of action for legal malpractice, plaintiffs allege that defendant represented them while laboring under a conflict of interest. Plaintiffs have, however, failed to offer any proof of damages attributable to the alleged malpractice independent of their claim previously dismissed by reason of their bad faith destruction of evidence (see, Sage Realty Corp. v. Proskauer Rose LLP, 275 A.D.2d 11, 12). Accordingly, the motion court properly dismissed the complaint since plaintiffs were unable to establish a prima facie cause of action for legal malpractice (see, Matter of Nevelson v. Carro, Spanbock, Kaster Cuiffo, 259 A.D.2d 282, 283).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.