Opinion
01-05081
Argued April 29, 2002
June 6, 2002
In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Carter, J.), dated March 29, 2001, which granted the defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (7) to dismiss the complaint and denied their cross motion for leave to amend the complaint.
Lawrence Van Dyke, Roslyn Heights, N.Y., for appellants.
Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman Dicker, LLP, New York, N Y (Mark K. Anesh, Wendy B. Shepps, and Richard E. Lerner of counsel), for respondents.
SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint based upon documentary evidence that conclusively established a defense to the action (see CPLR 3211[a][1]; Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83). The defendants submitted a settlement agreement, signed by the plaintiffs, which flatly contradicted the fact on which the claim of malpractice rests (see Beattie v. Brown Wood, 243 A.D.2d 395; Schwarz v. Shapiro, 202 A.D.2d 187). Further, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs' cross motion for leave to amend their complaint as the proposed "new" causes of action claiming breach of contract and fraud were duplicative of the legal malpractice claim (see Best v. Law Firm of Queller Fisher, 278 A.D.2d 441, 442, cert denied sub nom Best v. Sears Roebuck and Co., US [Jan. 7, 2002]; Mecca v. Shang, 258 A.D.2d 569, 570).
FEUERSTEIN, J.P., KRAUSMAN, LUCIANO and CRANE, JJ., concur.