CRUZ v. DURST LAW FIRM

In an action for legal malpractice, defendant attorneys failed to meet their burden as summary judgment movants to demonstrate the absence of a triable issue as to whether plaintiffs would have prevailed to some extent in the underlying action but for their malpractice (see, Shopsin v. Siben Siben, 268 A.D.2d 578, 702 N.Y.S.2d 610), i.e., failing in the underlying action to name and serve the record owner of the premises where plaintiffs' personal injuries occurred, thus allowing the Statute of Limitations to expire against that party. Thus, denial of their summary judgment motion was required (id.).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.