Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
In order to recover damages for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must not only prove that the attorney failed to exercise that degree of care, skill, and diligence commonly possessed and exercised by a member of the legal community (see, Logalbo v Plishkin, Rubano Baum, 163 A.D.2d 511), but the plaintiff must also establish that the attorney's negligence was a proximate cause of the loss sustained, that the plaintiff incurred damages as a direct result of the attorney's actions, and that the plaintiff would have been successful in the underlying action if the attorney had exercised due care (see, Luniewski v Zeitlin, 188 A.D.2d 642; Parksville Mobil Modular v Fabricant, 73 A.D.2d 595, 599, citing Kerson Co. v Shayne, Dachs, Weiss, Kolbrenner, Levy Levine, 45 N.Y.2d 730). In the case herein, the appellant failed to raise triable issues as to whether the attorney's actions were a proximate cause of the loss.
The appellants' remaining contention is without merit. Pizzuto, J.P., Joy, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.