Majority
—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.
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. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Ross, Tom, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.
Cases cited
- Ryan v. New York Telephone Co. 62 NY2d 494 p. 256
- Pamilla v. Hospital for Special Surgery 223 AD2d 508 p. 256
- Headquarters Buick-Nissan, Inc. v. Oldsmobile 149 AD2d 302 at 303-304, 305 p. 256
- Duane Jones Co. v. Burke 306 NY 172 p. 256
- Danann Realty Corp. v. Harris 5 NY2d 317 at 322 p. 256
- Hussie v. Bressler 122 AD2d 113 p. 256