ROLLER v. WALSH (2004)

Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking damages for the alleged legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty by defendant in his negotiation and preparation of documents drafted in connection with commercial real estate development projects.   Supreme Court properly granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the issue of the existence of an attorney-client relationship between the parties was previously resolved against plaintiffs in a related action (Matter of Roller, 298 A.D.2d 862, 747 N.Y.S.2d 825), and plaintiffs are thus barred from relitigating that issue (see FMA/Construction Mgt. Corp. v. Yaabetz, 158 A.D.2d 664, 665, 552 N.Y.S.2d 41, appeal dismissed 77 N.Y.2d 830, 566 N.Y.S.2d 583, 567 N.E.2d 977).   Defendant met his burden of establishing that the issue in this action is identical to the “issue which was raised, necessarily decided and material in the [related] action, and [that] plaintiff[s] had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the [related] action” (Parker v. Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co., 93 N.Y.2d 343, 349, 690 N.Y.S.2d 478, 712 N.E.2d 647;  see Ryan v. New York Tel. Co., 62 N.Y.2d 494, 500-501, 478 N.Y.S.2d 823, 467 N.E.2d 487), and plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Elkin v. Cassarino, 248 A.D.2d 35, 40-41, 680 N.Y.S.2d 601).

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed with costs.

MEMORANDUM: