DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is modified by deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the motion which was for an award of sanctions and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, with one bill of costs payable to the plaintiffs-respondents and the third-party defendants-respondents-appellants, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a hearing in accordance herewith.
The Supreme Court correctly determined that the third-party complaint, even if liberally construed in favor of the third-party plaintiff (see, e. g., Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83, 87-88), fails to allege a breach of any duty by the third-party defendants giving rise to a cognizable claim to recover damages for legal malpractice (see, e.g., Rosner v. Paley, 65 N.Y.2d 736, 738; cf., Schauer v. Joyce, 54 N.Y.2d 1, 5).
However, the Supreme Court erred in denying the third-party defendants' request for sanctions. The entire third-party action, including the various motions made by the third-party plaintiff, is frivolous within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(c) in that it is without basis in law or fact, and was designed merely to harass and delay his opponents (see e.g., Mitchell v. Herald Co., 137 A.D.2d 213; see also, Intercontinental Credit Corp. Div. Of Pan Am. Trade Dev. Corp. v. Roth, 78 N.Y.2d 306; Mantovi v. Nico Constr. Co., 217 A.D.2d 650). Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a hearing on the issue of the appropriate amount of a sanction to be imposed and reasonable counsel fees to be awarded pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1.
JOY, J.P., ALTMAN, GOLDSTEIN and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.