Plaintiff cannot state a cause of action for legal malpractice based solely on defendant's disqualification for an alleged conflict of interest in a separate litigation ( see, Lavanant v. General Acc. Ins. Co., 212 A.D.2d 450; Mills v. Pappas, 174 A.D.2d 780, 782, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 1121, cert denied 504 U.S. 971). Plaintiff does not show any damages attributable to defendant's alleged ethical breach, other than the attorney's fees it incurred in litigating defendant's disqualification, the first application for which was denied. In any event, as the motion court noted, the request for fees, if recoverable, should have been raised in the proceeding in which the disqualification occurred. Nor does plaintiff allege facts showing "`a chronic, extreme pattern of legal delinquency'" such as would support a cause of action under Judiciary Law § 487 ( Gonzalez v. Gordon, 233 A.D.2d 191, lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 802).
Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Rubin, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.