Guidance Endodontics, LLC v. Olshan Grundman, Frome Rosensweig & Wolosky, LLP

Majority

p. 508

Guidance Endodontics, LLC, Appellant, v Olshan Grundman, Frome Rosensweig and Wolosky, LLP, Respondent.

[66 NYS3d 604]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered November 3, 2016, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff’s claims in this legal malpractice action are barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel (see Buechel v Bain, 97 NY2d 295 , 303-304 [2001], cert denied 535 US 1096 [2002]; CPLR 3211 [a] [5]). There is an identity of issues necessarily decided in plaintiff’s related malpractice action against defendant’s cocounsel in New Mexico and decisive of this action, and plaintiff does not dispute that it vigorously contested cocoun-sel’s successful motions for summary judgment dismissing the New Mexico action.

p. 509

We note also that the complaint fails to state a cause of action (CPLR 3211 [a] [7]). The allegations not only are sheer speculation but also are precluded by plaintiffs settlement of the underlying action for reasons other than defendant’s alleged malpractice (see Rodriguez v Fredericks, 213 AD2d 176 , 178 [1st Dept 1995], lv denied 85 NY2d 812 [1995]).

We have considered plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur—Renwick, J.P., Richter, Manzanet-Daniels, Kahn and Kern, JJ.

Cases cited

Buechel v. Bain 97 NY2d 295 N.Y. 2001-12-20 at 303-304 p. 508
Rodriguez v. Fredericks 213 AD2d 176 N.Y. App. Div. 1995-03-07 at 178 p. 509