Ordered that the order is affirmed, insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiff's complaint states a valid cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice in that it alleges that the defendant neglected to defend a British action (see, Siegel v Kranis, 29 A.D.2d 477, 479) which was the proximate cause of the additional expense of litigating in Great Britain as well as in New York. Furthermore, the claim is viable despite the plaintiff's settlement of the underlying matrimonial action because it is alleged that the settlement of that action was effectively compelled by the mistakes of the defendant, the plaintiff's former counsel (see, Cohen v Lipsig, 92 A.D.2d 536).
The plaintiff's failure to join subsequent counsel is not fatal to her action (cf. CPLR 3211 [a] [10]) because joint tort-feasors are not necessary parties (see, Hecht v City of New York, 60 N.Y.2d 57, 62; Siskind v Levy, 13 A.D.2d 538, 539; CPLR 1001 [a]).
Finally, the court did not abuse its discretion in granting the plaintiff leave to amend her complaint (see, Fahey v County of Ontario, 44 N.Y.2d 934, 935). Thompson, J.P., Weinstein, Rubin and Spatt, JJ., concur.