Plaintiff Schwartz and his corporate alter ego, Ultracashmere House, Ltd., have failed to establish by evidentiary showing any malpractice, conflict of interest, or breach of professional responsibility on the part of either of their prior legal counsel, despite more than adequate opportunity to make such a showing. These claims have been rejected in numerous prior proceedings, and are thus barred from consideration under the doctrine of res judicata (Prudential Lines v. Firemen's Ins. Co., 91 A.D.2d 1). Furthermore, the claim against the Schwarzfeld firm was barred by the Statute of Limitations. The relationship of privity between Schwartz and his corporate alter ego requires that the former be estopped by reason of judgment against the latter (Hernandez v. Nelson, 143 A.D.2d 632, 633). The injunction against further litigation by these plaintiffs was clearly justified by the vexatious nature of these proceedings and the concomitant abuse of the judicial process (Sassower v. Signorelli, 99 A.D.2d 358).
Concur — Ross, J.P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.