Opinion
Submitted December 8, 2000
January 11, 2001.
In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Bellantoni, J.), entered September 28, 1999, which granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint.
Adrienne Marsh Lefkowitz, Los Angeles, CA., appellant pro se.
D'Amato Lynch, New York, N.Y. (Alfred A. D'Agostino, Jr., and Sanjit Shah of counsel), for respondent.
Before: LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, ACTING P.J., CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, ANITA R. FLORIO, LEO F. McGINITY, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint. In contesting the defendant's fee in a related proceeding in the Surrogate`s Court, the plaintiff, inter alia, asserted a counterclaim sounding in legal malpractice. By virtue of the Surrogate's decree fixing the value of the defendant's services, the court necessarily concluded that there was no malpractice (see, Koppelman v. Liddle, O'Connor, Finkelstein Robinson, 246 A.D.2d 365; Pirog v. Ingber, 203 A.D.2d 348; Grace Co. v. Tunstead, Schechter Torre, 186 A.D.2d 15; Chisholm-Ryder Co. v. Sommer Sommer, 78 A.D.2d 143; Kagan Meat Poultry v. Kalter, 70 A.D.2d 632). Accordingly, the plaintiff`s legal malpractice claims based upon the same services at issue before the Surrogate's Court are barred by the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata (see, Ryan v. New York Tel. Co., 62 N.Y.2d 494).