In this action seeking damages against a client for alleged fraudulent inducement to enter into an oral contingency retainer agreement, the IAS Court, in finding that the complaint failed to state a cause of action, properly held that public policy precluded a cause of action for fraud by an attorney against a client ( see, Demov, Morris, Levin Shein v. Glantz, 53 N.Y.2d 553, 557; Liner Technology v. Hayes, 213 A.D.2d 881, 882).
Under the circumstances herein, it was a proper exercise of the IAS Court's discretion to enjoin plaintiff from pursuing additional litigation against defendants or their representatives without prior permission of the court ( see, Schwartz v. Nordstrom, Inc., 160 A.D.2d 240, 242, appeal dismissed 76 N.Y.2d 845, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 711, citing Sassower v. Signorelli, 99 A.D.2d 358, 359-360).
We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Nardelli, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ. [As amended by unpublished order entered May 14, 1998.]