Opinion
December 23, 1997
Appeal from Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.).
The IAS Court properly dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint, sounding in legal malpractice, as time-barred. Plaintiffs' prior Texas State court action is not a "prior action" within the meaning of CPLR 205 (a) ( see, Talarico v. Crimmins Contr. Co., 1995 US Dist LEXIS 10053, *6-7, [S.D.N.Y., July 18, 1995, Patterson, J.], citing Baker v. Commercial Travelers Mut. Acc. Assn., 3 A.D.2d 265). Even if it were, plaintiffs' New York action, commenced more than six months after the termination of the Texas action, is still time-barred ( Cohoes Hous. Auth. v. Ippolito-Lutz, Inc., 65 A.D.2d 666, affd 49 N.Y.2d 961; see, Santulli v. Englert, Reilly McHugh, 78 N.Y.2d 700). We have considered plaintiffs' remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Milonas, Wallach, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.