A Favorable Settlement

The dismissal of a legal malpractice claim was affirmed by the New York Appellate Division for the Fourth Judicial Department

We conclude that defendant’s evidentiary submissions on its motion conclusively established that plaintiff has no cause of action for legal malpractice (see generally Rovello, 40 NY2d at 636). Defendant submitted evidence of a favorable settlement in the underlying suit, and that evidence “flatly contradicts” plaintiff’s conclusory allegations to the effect that the settlement was compelled by the mistakes of counsel (Olszewski v Waters of Orchard Park, 303 AD2d 995, 995 [4th Dept 2003] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see generally Niagara County, 82 AD3d at 1599).

Finally, even assuming, arguendo, that Judiciary Law § 487 is applicable where, as here, the alleged misconduct takes place in connection with an action in federal court (cf. Delaney v HC2, Inc., 761 F Supp 3d 641, 664 [SD NY 2025]; SGM Holdings LLC v Andrews, 743 F Supp 3d 545, 584 [SD NY 2024]), we conclude that the complaint lacks the particularity required for a Judiciary Law § 487 cause of action inasmuch as it contains no facts to support plaintiff’s conclusory allegations that defendant willfully delayed the proceedings or engaged in a chronic pattern of deceptive conduct (see Pieroni v Phillips Lytle LLP, 140 AD3d 1707, 1710 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 901 [2016]; cf. Joseph v Fensterman, 204 AD3d 766, 767 [2d Dept 2022]).

(Mike Frisch)