The IAS Court properly determined that third-party defendant Grossman's motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint was precluded by triable issues of fact with respect to Grossman's role, if any, as plaintiff's counsel, in causing or exacerbating plaintiff's damages in the underlying legal malpractice action, and with respect to the viability of the Gaffin Defendants' third-party claim for contribution as against Grossman for plaintiff's ultimate injury since it is well settled that an attorney sued for malpractice may bring a third-party complaint seeking indemnity or contribution against a subsequently retained attorney whose negligence has contributed to or aggravated the plaintiff's damages. (Schauer v Joyce, 54 N.Y.2d 1; Hansen v Brognano, 137 A.D.2d 880, 881.)
We have reviewed third-party defendant Grossman's remaining claims and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Kupferman and Rubin, JJ.