Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered April 6, 2007, which granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.

Per Curiam.

Order (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered April 6, 2007, affirmed, with $10 costs.
Bare legal conclusions and factual claims which are flatly contradicted by the record are not presumed to be true on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action (see Morone v Morone, 50 NY2d 481 [1980]). When read in conjunction with the evidentiary record, including an open court stipulation settling the underlying Housing Court litigation, and plaintiff's unsuccessful attempts to vacate the settlement agreement based upon the precise claims herein raised, the complaint fails to allege any material facts giving rise to a cognizable claim for legal malpractice (see Kantrowitz & Goldhamer, P.C. v Geller, 265 AD2d 529 [1999]; see also Speken v Moore, 6 AD3d 198 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 608 [2004]). Plaintiff's breach of contract claim was properly dismissed as duplicative of the insufficient malpractice claim (see Turk v Angel, 293 AD2d 284 [2002], lv dismissed 99 NY2d 651 [2003]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: April 08, 2009