Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court acted properly in granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment and denying the appellants' cross motion. The appellants' legal malpractice claim is barred by the defendants' successful prosecution of a prior action to recover fees for the same legal services which the appellants presently allege were negligently performed (see, e.g., Grace Co. v Tunstead, Schechter Torre, 186 A.D.2d 15; Chisholm-Ryder Co. v Sommer Sommer, 78 A.D.2d 143). Indeed, any uncertainty with respect to this issue is dispelled by the decision of the Appellate Division, Third Department, which affirmed the judgment in the prior fee action and specifically concluded that the appellants failed to establish the existence of any triable issue of fact with respect to the claim for legal fees (see, Ingber v Pirog, 176 A.D.2d 1163). Sullivan, J.P., Joy, Hart and Krausman, JJ., concur.