Summary
suggesting that claim for fraudulent inducement can be deemed duplicative of claim for misappropriation of trade secrets and unfair competition
Summary of this case from Alnwick v. European Micro Holdings, Inc.Opinion
November 26, 1996.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered November 16, 1994, which, inter alia, granted defendants-respondents' cross motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Before: Murphy, P.J., Ross, Tom, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.
Having had the issues of unfair competition and misappropriation of trade secrets resolved against them on the merits in a prior action, plaintiffs are collaterally estopped from litigating those claims in this action ( Ryan v New York Tel. Co., 62 NY2d 494). To the extent that the causes of action styled as interference with economic advantage, diversion of a corporate opportunity, and fraudulent inducement can be deemed not duplicative of the theories rejected in the prior action, they fail to state a cause of action ( see, Matter of Pamilla v Hospital For Special Surgery, 223 AD2d 508; Headquarters Buick-Nissan v Michael Oldsmobile, 149 AD2d 302, 303-304, 305 [distinguishing Jones Co. v Burke, 306 NY 172]; Danann Realty Corp. v Harris, 5 NY2d 317, 322). The cause of action against defendant attorneys was properly dismissed since a legal malpractice claim cannot be asserted against another party's attorneys simply for advice given to that other party ( Hussie v Bressler, 122 AD2d 113). We have considered plaintiffs' other arguments and find them to be without merit.