From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pirog v. Ingber

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 11, 1994
203 A.D.2d 348 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

April 11, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Orange County (Miller, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court acted properly in granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment and denying the appellants' cross motion. The appellants' legal malpractice claim is barred by the defendants' successful prosecution of a prior action to recover fees for the same legal services which the appellants presently allege were negligently performed (see, e.g., Grace Co. v Tunstead, Schechter Torre, 186 A.D.2d 15; Chisholm-Ryder Co. v Sommer Sommer, 78 A.D.2d 143). Indeed, any uncertainty with respect to this issue is dispelled by the decision of the Appellate Division, Third Department, which affirmed the judgment in the prior fee action and specifically concluded that the appellants failed to establish the existence of any triable issue of fact with respect to the claim for legal fees (see, Ingber v Pirog, 176 A.D.2d 1163). Sullivan, J.P., Joy, Hart and Krausman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Pirog v. Ingber

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 11, 1994
203 A.D.2d 348 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Pirog v. Ingber

Case Details

Full title:STEPHEN L. PIROG et al., Appellants, v. JACK S. INGBER et al., Respondents

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Apr 11, 1994

Citations

203 A.D.2d 348 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
609 N.Y.S.2d 675

Citing Cases

Schweizer v. Mulvehill

race Co., Inc. v. Tunstead, Schecter Tarre, 186 A.D.2d 15, 18, 588 N.Y.S.2d 262, 265 (1st Dep't 1992)…

Cotton v. Kiperman

Pursuant to this doctrine, a legal malpractice action generally will be barred by the defendant's…