Plaintiff's claims against defendant attorney are premised upon the contention that she, as attorney for plaintiff's former wife in the now concluded divorce action brought by her against him, was complicit in an allegedly wrongful inventory of several safe deposit boxes used by plaintiff to store numerous watches, bearer bonds, gold, pens and other valuables. Inasmuch, however, as the issue of the propriety of the challenged inventory was fully litigated in the divorce action, and determined adversely to plaintiff, plaintiff may not in this subsequent action revisit the issue ( see Gramatan Home Invs. Corp. v. Lopez, 46 N.Y.2d 481, 485). Moreover, plaintiff's claims for conversion, abuse of process, prima facie tort and violation of Judiciary Law § 487 were time-barred.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.