Lusk v Weinstein
2011 NY Slip Op 04742 [85 AD3d 445]
June 7, 2011
Appellate Division, First Department
As corrected through Wednesday, August 10, 2011


Jeanne Marie Lusk, Appellant,
v
Kenneth J. Weinstein,Esq., Defendant, and Suzanne Parker, Esq., Respondent.

[*1]Leonard Zack & Associates, New York (Leonard Zack of counsel), for appellant.

Steinberg & Cavaliere, LLP, White Plains (Steven A. Coploff of counsel), forrespondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin G. Diamond, J.), entered September 23,2010, which, insofar as appealed from, granted defendant Parker's motion to dismiss thecomplaint against her, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff was a party to the underlying matrimonial action in which she retained defendantParker to represent her.

The court properly found that a charging lien entered in the underlying action againstplaintiff barred her from thereafter asserting a claim for legal malpractice (see JudiciaryLaw § 475; Wallach v Unger &Stutman, LLP, 48 AD3d 360 [2008]). While it is unclear to what award the charginglien attached, the charging lien order was never vacated or appealed. Instead, plaintiff enteredinto a stipulation with Parker to resolve the parties' fee dispute without prejudice to any otherclaims either party might assert against the other in other actions, e.g., Parker's res judicatadefense here.

Plaintiff's causes of action for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty were properlydismissed as duplicative of the legal malpractice claim (see e.g. Garten v Shearman & Sterling LLP, 52 AD3d 207, 207-208[2008]), since they arose out of the same facts as the legal malpractice action and did not involveany additional damages, separate and distinct from those generated by the alleged malpractice (see Garnett v Fox, Horan & Camerini,LLP, 82 AD3d 435 [2011]).

Plaintiff's claim under Judiciary Law § 487 was also properly dismissed on res judicatagrounds since it was predicated on the same conduct as that alleged in the legal malpractice claim(see Zito v Fischbein Badillo WagnerHarding, 80 AD3d 520, 521 [2011]).

We have considered plaintiff's remaining contention and find it without merit.Concur—Saxe, J.P., DeGrasse, Freedman, Abdus-Salaam and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.