KINBERG v. OPINSKY (2008)

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Patricia Anne Williams, J.), entered March 30, 2007, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, in an action for legal malpractice, granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

 A 2003 order denying defendant's prior motion for, inter alia, pre-answer summary judgment (CPLR 3211[c] ), expressly reserved substantive issues for a later time.   Accordingly, defendant showed sufficient cause for this motion under CPLR 3212 (see Varsity Tr. v. Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 300 A.D.2d 38, 39, 752 N.Y.S.2d 603 [2002] ).   The record shows that plaintiff failed to demonstrate that defendant committed negligent acts but for which plaintiff's 1992 matrimonial action, which plaintiff ultimately settled in 2000 after having discharged defendant, would have ended more favorably to her (see e.g. Tanel v. Kreitzer & Vogelman, 293 A.D.2d 420, 421, 741 N.Y.S.2d 221 [2002] ).   Moreover, in two causes of action, plaintiff fails to plead any demand for compensatory damages, and her demands for punitive damages are unsupported by evidence that would warrant such relief (see Gamiel v. Curtis & Riess-Curtis, P.C., 16 A.D.3d 140, 141, 791 N.Y.S.2d 78 [2005] ).   Plaintiff's cause of action alleging that defendant violated Judiciary Law § 487 is not viable, as the requisite evidence of a “chronic and extreme pattern of legal delinquency” is not found in the record (see Nason v. Fisher, 36 A.D.3d 486, 487, 828 N.Y.S.2d 51 [2007], quoting Solow Mgt. Corp. v. Seltzer, 18 A.D.3d 399, 400, 795 N.Y.S.2d 448 [2005], lv. denied 5 N.Y.3d 712, 806 N.Y.S.2d 162, 840 N.E.2d 131 [2005] ).

We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.