Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in this legal malpractice action. The entry of a judgment in favor of defendant Green Seifter, Attorneys, P.C., against plaintiff in a prior action to recover fees for legal services bars a malpractice action regarding those same legal services (see, Blair v. Bartlett, 75 N.Y. 150; Chisholm-Ryder Co. v. Sommer Sommer, 78 A.D.2d 143; see also, Harris v. Stein, 207 A.D.2d 382; Pirog v. Ingber, 203 A.D.2d 348; Altamore v. Friedman, 193 A.D.2d 240, lv dismissed 83 N.Y.2d 906, rearg denied 83 N.Y.2d 1001; Grace Co. v. Tunstead, Schechter Torre, 186 A.D.2d 15; Siegel, N.Y. Prac § 464, at 701-702 [2d ed]). We reject the contention of plaintiff that our decision in Chisholm-Ryder Co. was implicitly overruled by the Court of Appeals in Kaufman v. Lilly Co. ( 65 N.Y.2d 449) and subsequent decisions of that Court that address the issue of collateral estoppel (see, e.g., D'Arata v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 76 N.Y.2d 659; Matter of Halyalkar v. Board of Regents, 72 N.Y.2d 261).