By Dillon, J.P.; Hinds-Radix, Duffy, Wooten, JJ.
AQUA-TROL CORPORATION, app, v. WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER, P.A., res — (Index No. 8853/14) Steven G. Legum, Mineola, NY (Gina Biasi of counsel), for appellant. L’Abbate, Balkin, Colavita & Contini, LLP, Garden, City, NY (Marian C. Rice and Candice B. Ratner of counsel), for respondent. In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Stephen A. Bucaria, J.), dated July 16, 2019. The judgment, upon an order of the same court dated July 11, 2019, granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denying the plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, is in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff dismissing the complaint. ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied, the complaint is reinstated, and the order dated July 11, 2019, is modified accordingly. In September 2014, the plaintiff, Aqua-Trol Corporation (hereinafter Aqua-Trol), commenced this action against the defendant, Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, P.A. (hereinafter Wilentz), former counsel to Aqua-Trol, to recover damages Aqua-Trol alleges it incurred as a result of legal malpractice committed by Wilentz when it represented Aqua-Trol in an underlying mortgage foreclosure action in which Aqua-Trol was a named defendant (hereinafter the underlying foreclosure action). As is relevant to the appeal, Aqua-Trol alleged that Wilentz committed legal malpractice causing damages to Aqua-Trol by erroneously making certain concessions and failing to raise meritorious defenses in an answer Wilentz filed on behalf of Aqua-Trol in the underlying foreclosure action. Aqua-Trol alleged that a judgment in the underlying foreclosure action effectively extinguished a mortgage lien held by Aqua-Trol on the property at issue in the underlying foreclosure action. Wilentz moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and Aqua-Trol cross-moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability. In an order dated July 11, 2019, the Supreme Court granted Wilentz’s motion and denied Aqua-Trol’s cross motion. Thereafter, a judgment was entered, upon the order, which is in favor of Wilentz and against Aqua-Trol dismissing the complaint. Aqua-Trol appeals. We reverse.
