There is at least an issue of fact as to whether the contract claim was viable as a promise to achieve a particular result separate from the breach of general professional standards in defendants' field and thus not duplicative of the legal malpractice cause of action ( see Matter of R.M. Kliment Frances Halsband, Architects [McKinsey Co., Inc.], 3 NY3d 538, 542-543; Senise v. Mackasek, 227 AD2d 184). The Judiciary Law § 487 claim was not conclusory, as it was supported by the previously sustained allegations of fraud, and was based on conduct in a proceeding to which plaintiff was a party, rather than conduct taking place before or after the proceeding ( cf. Stanski v. Ezersky, 228 AD2d 311, 313, lv denied 89 NY2d 805; Bankers Trust Co. v. Cerrato, Sweeney, Cohn, Stahl Vaccaro, 187 AD2d 384, 386). Whether the alleged deceit meets the standard required by Judiciary Law § 487 subjecting defendants to treble damages ( see Schindler v. Issler Schrage, 262 AD2d 226, lv dismissed 94 NY2d 791) presented an issue of fact.
We have considered the parties' other contentions for affirmative relief and find them unavailing.