In Estate of Nevelson v. Carro 259 AD2d 282, 686 N.Y.S.2d 404, the First Department denied summary judgment on a legal malpractice claim where the movants offered only conclusory, self-serving statements in support of their motion. There, the issue was whether or not the plaintiff was required to submit expert testimony in opposition to the motion. The Appellate Division found that, even if, arguendo, expert opinion was required to establish a departure from the requisite standard of care, the plaintiff's obligation to offer such evidence was never triggered because the defendants had failed to establish a prima facie right to judgment. The panel noted that the defendants had offered "no expert or other evidence which would tend to establish, prima facie, that they did not depart from the requisite standard of care." Id. at 284