L ewis A. Ka plan, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New * York, sitting by

designation. 08 -30 96 -cv M cC ord v. O ’N

ei ll UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT S UM M ARY OR DER R ul i ngs by s umm ary o rder do n ot have prece denti al ef fect . C i t ati on to a s umm ary o rder fi l ed on or aft er Ja nua ry 1 , 2 0 0 7 , i s p e r m itte d a n d is g o v e r n e d b y F e d e r a l R u le o f A p p e lla te P r o c e d u r e 3 2 .1 a n d t h is c o u r t’ s L o c a l R u le 32. 1. 1. W he n c i t i ng a s ummar y or de r i n a d ocu men t f i l ed w i t h t hi s c our t , a par t y mus t c i t e ei t he r t he Fede ral A p p en d i x o r a n elec tro n i c d a ta b a se (w i th th e no ta tion “ su m m a ry o rd er ” ). A p a rty citi n g a su m m a ry o rd er m u st se r v e a c o p y o f it o n a n y p a r ty n o t r e p r e se n te d b y c o u n se l. 1 At a stated te rm o f t h e Uni ted States Court of Appea ls for the Sec ond Circuit, held at the 2 Daniel Patric k Moy nihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on 3 the 11 day

of Mar ch, two thousand ten. th 4 5 PRES ENT: 6 7 J OHN M. WALKER, J R., 8 DEB RA ANN L IVI NGSTON, 9 Circ uit J ud ge s, 10 11 L EWI S A. KAPLAN, * 12 District Judge . 13 14 15 MARK A. MCCORD, 16 Plaintif f-Appellant , 17 18 -v.- No. 08-3096-c v 19 Summary Orde r 20 21 M IC H A E L G . O ’ N E ILL, 22 Defendant- Appellee , 23 24 25 Mark A. Mc Cord, pro s e , Br ookly n, NY. 26 27 Scott E. Kossove , L ’A b bate, B alkan, Colavita & Contini , L .L .P., 28 Gar den City , NY for Defendant-Appe llee . 292

1 2 Appea l from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Easter

n District of Ne w 3 York (Ross, J. ). 4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATI ON I T I S HE R EBYORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 5 DECREED that the judg ment of the district cour t be AF FIRMED. 6 Plaintiff-Appellant Mar k A. McCord, pro s e , a

pp e a ls the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s gra nt o f D e fe nd ant7 Appellee Michae l G. O’Ne ill’s moti on for summary judgme nt, dismi ssing Mc Cord’s claim for leg al 8 malprac tice arising f rom O’Ne ill’s repre sentation of McCord in a prior employ

ment discrimination 9 case , Hill v. Airborne Freight Corp. , E .D .N .Y . D kt. No . 9 8- c v-624 9. We a ssume the pa rt ie s’ 10 fa mil iari ty wi th t he un de rl yingfa c ts, the pr oc e dura l hi sto ry of the c a se , a

nd the iss ue s o n a

pp e a l. 11 As an i n i t ial matter, to the e x tent McCord asse rts on appea l that O’Ne ill is liable for le g al 12 malprac tice bec ause of an alleg ed “c onflict of intere st,” we de cline to co n s i d er t h is or any related 13 arguments, as McCord did not raise these issues below. Se eSingle ton v . W ulf f , 428 U.S. 106, 120-21 14 (1976) ( rec og nizi ngthe well esta blished g ener al rule that a court of appea ls will notconsider a n issue 15 ra ise d f

or the fi rs t ti me on

a pp e a l) ; se e als o Vi rg ili o v . Ci ty of N e w York, 407 F.3d 105, 116 ( 2d Cir. 16 2 0 0 5 ) ( ci t i n g W

esti ng ho us eCre dit

Cor p. v . D ’U rso , 371 F.3d 96, 103 ( 2d Cir. 2004)). 17 Th is Court re vie ws or de rs g ra

nti ngsumma

ry jud g me nt de novo and focuses on whether the 18 district court prope rly conclude d that there was n o gen u i n e issue as to any materia l fac t and the 19 m o v ing pa

rty was e ntitled to judgment as a matter of la

w. S e eM ille r v . W o lp o ff &A b ra m son, 20 L.L.P. , 3 21 F .3 d 2 92 , 3 00 (2 d Ci r. 20 03 ); Republic Nat’l Bank v . Delta Air Lines , 263 F.3d 42, 46 21 (2 d Ci r. 2001 ); Al lst ateIn s. Co. v . M

az zo la , 175 F.3d 255, 258 ( 2d Cir. 1999). In deter mining 22 whether

there are g enuine issues of material fa ct, this Court is “required to resolve all ambiguities 23 and dra

w all per missibl e fa ctual infe renc es i n favor of the party ag ainst whom summary judgme nt3

1 is sought.” Te rry

v . A sh c ro ft , 336 F.3d 128, 137 ( 2d Cir. 2003) (interna l quotation marks omitted). 2 Construing a ll the fac ts in McCord’ s favor , an independe nt r eview of the re cord shows that 3 the district court pro p erly grante d O’Ne ill’s moti on for summary judgme nt. “To state a

claim for 4 leg al malpra ctice unde r Ne w York la w, a plaintiff must alleg e: ( 1 ) attorney neg lige nce; ( 2) which 5 is the pr oximate c a us e of a los s; and (3) a ctual dama g es.” Achtman v . Kirby, McIne rney &Squire, 6 LLP , 464 F.3d 328, 337 (2d C ir. 2006). Under this standard, “[a] complaint that essentially alleg es 7 e ith e r a

n ‘ e rr or ofjud g me nt’ or a

‘s e le c tio n o f o ne amon gse ve ra l r e a so na ble c ours e s o f a c tio n’ fa ils 8 to state a c laim for malpra ctice.” Id. (qu o t i n g Rosner v. Pale y , 481 N.E. 2d 553, 554 (N.Y . 1985)). 9 And, in g ener al, “a n attorney may only be held liable f

or ‘ignoranc e of the rules of pr actice , failure 10 to comply with c onditions pre cede nt to suit, or for his ne g lect to prosecute or def end an a ction.’” Id. 11 (quoti n g B er nstein v. Oppe nheim &Co. , 554 N.Y.S.2d 487, 489-90 (N.Y . App. Div. 1st Dep’t 12 1990)). 13 Her e, McCord’ s malprac tice claim rested on the allegation that O’Ne ill’s failure to contact 14 Ron L awr ence , another employee of McCord’s former e mploy er, a s a possible witness constituted 15 neg lige nce, a

nd that, had L awr ence been a witness in his case, the district c ourt would not have 16 grante d Airborne ’s motion for judg ment of a matter of law and dis missed McCord’s discrimination 17 c la ims . O ’N e ill me t hi s in iti a l bu rd e n o f d e mon str atin gthat hi s d e c isi on wa s a re a so na ble str ate g ic 18 c ho ic e by sh ow ing that the on ly inf or matio n r e g ard ingL awr e nc e in M c Cor d’ s p os se ssi on at th e tim e 19 was L awr ence ’s “Summary of Disciplinary

/Attendance History .” T h i s document showed that 20 L awr ence , a Cauc asian, ha d rec eived much the same disciplinary treatment as McC ord, under mining 21 Mc Cor d’ s c onte nti on that c a lli ng L awren c e wo uld have e na

ble d h im t o d e mon str ate that hi s 22 employer tre ated him less favorably than a similarly

situated employee outsid e of his protected4

1 group. Se eMa nd

e ll v. Co un ty

of S uff olk , 316 F.3d 368, 379 ( 2d Cir. 2003). As the district cour t 2 c or

re c tly ob serve d, Mc Cor d a dd

uc e d n o e vid e nc e in r e sp on se su g g e sti ngthat O ’N e ill ’s fa ilure to 3 contac t L awr ence was neg lige nt, or that this decision could have pr ox imately resulted in the c ourt’s 4 unfavor able de cision in Hi ll . 5 We have c onsidered a ll of McCord’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. For 6 the fore g oing r easons, the judgment of the district cour t is hereby

AFF I RMED. 7 8 FOR THECOURT: 9 Catherine O ’Ha g an Wolfe, Clerk 10 11 12