Opinion
Argued January 9, 2001.
February 13, 2001.
In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the defendants third-party plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Bergerman, J.), entered November 23, 1999, as granted that branch of the motion of the third-party defendants which was to dismiss the second cause of action in the second amended third-party complaint for failure to state a cause of action.
Curtis Riess-Curtis, P.C., New York, N.Y. (W. Robert Curtis pro se and Cheryl Riess-Curtis of counsel), for defendant third-party plaintiff-appellant W. Robert Curtis and defendant third-party plaintiff-appellant pro se.
LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene MacRae, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Michael Lesch and Stephen H. Orel of counsel), for third-party defendants-respondents.
Before: SONDRA MILLER, J.P., LEO F. McGINITY, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, NANCY E. SMITH, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Contrary to the appellants' contention, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the second cause of action in the second amended third-party complaint. The appellants failed to state a cause of action alleging either tortious interference with contract (see, Lama Holding Co. v. Smith Barney, 88 N.Y.2d 413, 424), or tortious interference with a prospective business advantage (see, Moorman v. Huntington Hosp., 271 A.D.2d 585; Mandelblatt v. Devon Stores, 132 A.D.2d 162). Furthermore, to the extent that the appellants' cause of action alleging tortious interference is actually a claim of unfair settlement practices by the respondents no private cause of action exists (see, Insurance Law § 2601; Rocanova v. Equitable Life, 83 N.Y.2d 603; Cicchetti v. General Acc. Ins. Co. of N.Y., 272 A.D.2d 500).
We decline to impose sanctions against the appellants (see, 22 NYCRR 130-1.1[c]).