Opinion
May 13, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dye, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as cross-appealed from, on the law, the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint is granted in its entirety, and the complaint is dismissed; and it is further,
Ordered that the defendants are awarded one bill of costs.
The trial court properly dismissed the plaintiff's complaint to the extent that the plaintiff attempted to plead a cause of action sounding in attorney malpractice and/or fraud with respect to the defendant law firm and its attorneys. The law in New York does not recognize any liability on the part of an attorney to a nonclient third party for injuries sustained as a result of an attorney's actions in representing his client absent fraud, collusion, or a malicious or tortious act ( see, Michalic v Klat, 128 A.D.2d 505, 506; see also, Deni v. Air Niagara, 190 A.D.2d 1011). In his complaint, the plaintiff failed to set forth any allegations of fact tending to bring this case into one of the exceptions to the general rule, and his complaint does not set forth any of the requisite elements of actual fraud ( see, Koncelik v. Abady, 179 A.D.2d 942, 944).
We further find that the plaintiff's purported cause of action to recover damages for unjust enrichment should likewise have been dismissed. Under the facts of this case, where the plaintiff has alleged the existence of a valid, enforceable contract governing the plaintiff's alleged rights to the settlement money in question, recovery of that same money in quasi contract is precluded ( see, Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v. Long Is. R.R. Co., 70 N.Y.2d 382; Metropolitan Elec. Mfg. Co. v. Herbert Constr. Co., 183 A.D.2d 758).
In view of the foregoing, we need not reach the parties' remaining contentions. Mangano, P.J., Ritter, Hart and McGinity, JJ., concur.