Opinion
October 21, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.).
Assuming, arguendo, that plaintiffs established negligence and damages, the unrefuted documentary evidence demonstrates that the failure to close on the proposed sales was due solely to plaintiffs' own actions, and that there is otherwise no causal relationship between plaintiffs' loss and defendants' malpractice ( see, Plentino Realty v. Gitomer, 216 A.D.2d 87, lv denied 87 N.Y.2d 805). The cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty was properly dismissed, based as it is upon the same allegations as the malpractice cause of action ( see, CVC Capital Corp. v. Weil, Gotshal, Manges, 192 A.D.2d 324, 325), and the cause of action for breach of contract should have been dismissed as redundant, based as it is upon the same allegations as the other two causes of action ( see, Winegrad v. Jacobs, 171 A.D.2d 525, lv dismissed 78 N.Y.2d 952). Other than their nonmeritorious breach of contract claim, plaintiffs did not contest in any way defendants' counterclaims for payment of plaintiffs' outstanding legal bill, and thus we grant summary judgment on the counterclaims, in the amount of $53,208.40 with interest.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Wallach, Nardelli, Tom and Colabella, JJ.