Plaintiff’s cause of action for negligent misrepresentation was dismissed as duplicitive in this 2nd Department case.  Iannucci v Kucker & Bruh, LLP ;2007 NY Slip Op 06026 ;Decided on July 10, 2007 ;Appellate Division, Second Department

"The Supreme Court should have granted those branches of the defendants’ motion which were, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the third and fourth causes of action for failure to state a cause of action. These causes of action, which alleged negligent misrepresentation and fraud, arise from the same facts as the legal malpractice cause of action alleged in the complaint, and do not allege distinct damages (see Town of N. Hempstead v Winston & Strawn, LLP, 28 AD3d 746, 749; Daniels v Lebit, 299 AD2d 310; Best v Law Firm of Queller & Fisher, 278 AD2d 441, 442). By contrast, the second and fifth causes of action seek a refund of alleged excess fees that were paid to the defendants. These causes of action invoke facts different from those alleged in the first cause of action, which seeks damages in a different amount for legal malpractice."