Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.
To recover damages for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must prove that the attorney failed to exercise that degree of care, skill, and diligence commonly exercised by an ordinary member of the legal community ( see, Saferstein v. Klein, 250 A.D.2d 831). In addition, the plaintiff must establish that the attorney's negligence was a proximate cause of the loss sustained, that the plaintiff incurred actual damages as a direct result of the attorney's actions or inactions, and that but for the attorney's negligence, the plaintiff would have prevailed in the underlying action or would not have sustained any damages ( see, Saferstein v. Klein, supra; Hoffman v. Anolik, 250 A.D.2d 733; Platt v. Portnoy, 220 A.D.2d 652; Andrews Beverage Distrib. v. Stern, 215 A.D.2d 706; L.I.C. Commercial Corp. v. Rosenthal, 202 A.D.2d 644). Here, the plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that but for the defendant's alleged negligence, they would have recovered their down payment and not have sustained any damages. Accordingly, the court erred in denying the defendant's motion for summary judgment ( see, Gillin v. Patterson, Belknap, Webb Tyler, 251 A.D.2d 211).
Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.