Plaintiff Cherry Hill Market Corporation’s first two causes of its complaint alleged that defendants, Cozen O’connor P.C., as their retained counsel in a zoning matter and an unrelated litigation, provided inadequate and ineffective representation because their “objectives” in the zoning matter were not achieved, and because a summary-judgment motion was not filed by the court-imposed deadline in the unrelated litigation. The appellate court found that the trial court had properly treated the causes of action as sounding in legal malpractice, as opposed to causes of action founded upon common-law negligence and breach of fiduciary duty, and had properly dismissed them due to insufficient allegations as to proximate cause. The court stated that the plaintiffs did not plead facts to indicate that “but for” defendants’ alleged inadequate and ineffective representation of plaintiffs in the zoning and litigation matters, plaintiffs would have achieved the desired results sought.
Cherry Hill Mkt. Corp. v Cozen O’Connor P.C. 987 NYS2d 146 (NYAD 1 Dept. 6/12/2014)
The opinion can be accessed at: