ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint based upon documentary evidence that conclusively established a defense to the action (see CPLR 3211[a][1]; Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83). The defendants submitted a settlement agreement, signed by the plaintiffs, which flatly contradicted the fact on which the claim of malpractice rests (see Beattie v. Brown Wood, 243 A.D.2d 395; Schwarz v. Shapiro, 202 A.D.2d 187). Further, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs' cross motion for leave to amend their complaint as the proposed "new" causes of action claiming breach of contract and fraud were duplicative of the legal malpractice claim (see Best v. Law Firm of Queller Fisher, 278 A.D.2d 441, 442, cert denied sub nom Best v. Sears Roebuck and Co., US [Jan. 7, 2002]; Mecca v. Shang, 258 A.D.2d 569, 570).
FEUERSTEIN, J.P., KRAUSMAN, LUCIANO and CRANE, JJ., concur.