Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof which granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was to dismiss the plaintiffs' first cause of action and substituting therefor a provision denying that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The plaintiffs are seeking the reinstatement of their complaint which was dismissed in its entirety pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) and (1). Giving the pleadings "their most favorable intendment" (Arrington v. New York Times Co., 55 N.Y.2d 433, 442, cert denied 459 U.S. 1146; see also, Mihlovan v. Grozavu, 72 N.Y.2d 506, 508-509; Rovello v. Orofino Realty Co., 40 N.Y.2d 633, 634), we find that the plaintiffs' first cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice based upon faulty legal advice (see, Marks Polarized Corp. v. Solinger Gordon, 124 Misc.2d 266; see also, Cicorelli v. Capobianco, 90 A.D.2d 524, affd 59 N.Y.2d 626) is sufficiently stated (see, 219 Broadway Corp. v Alexander's, Inc., 46 N.Y.2d 506, 509). Rosenblatt, J.P., Miller, Ritter and Copertino, JJ., concur.