[brief] The Decision To Sue [...] In The Instant Litigation Came During The Lease Litigation  The decision to sue Defendants predated the settlement of the Lease Litigation and was strategically made during the Lease Litigation.  The record is filled with Plaintiff's admissions that they absolutely decided to sue the Defendants in a separate lawsuit, during the settlement of the Lease Litigation to attempt to recoup the damages incurred in the Lease Litigation.  [...], Plaintiff's designated representative, testified that he decided, in consultation with his attorney, [...], Esq., to pursue a legal malpractice action against Defendants, towards the end of the Lease Litigation.  (Pa0844,T203:1-5;T205:15-21).  In making this determination and in setting up this subsequent litigation against Defendants, Plaintiff secured a provision in the Settlement Agreement where he negotiated [...]’s cooperation in a subsequent malpractice action against Defendants.  (Pa0845,T206:24-207:12).  [...] could not articulate any valid reason why Defendants were not sued during the Lease Litigation.(Id., T207:19-T208:5).  Likewise, [...], another individual who acted on behalf of the Plaintiff, testified that the decision to start a legal malpractice action against Defendants was discussed and decided during the Lease Litigation at the time of the settlement negotiations.(Pa0252-Pa0254,T188:18-190:17).  According to [...], the idea of pursuing a legal malpractice action against the Defendants could be traced to discussions with [...] and [...] prior to the Settlement Agreement.  (Pa0260,T196:2-6)(Pa0255,T191:13-15).  As a result of these discussions, Plaintiff obtained a provision in the Settlement Agreement to secure the assistance of [...]’s attorney in a legal malpractice action against [...].  (Pa0255, T195:18-196:6).  This provision for cooperation in a legal malpractice action is significant not only because it forecasted the impending malpractice lawsuit, but also because it admitted that the claim for malpractice was connected to the Lease Litigation:  In consideration of the Settlement Payment and only to the extent the Settlement Payment is made and received in full by [[...]] in accordance with this Settlement Agreement, in the event Plaintiff pursues a claim for malpractice against Plaintiff’s former counsel attorney [...] in connection with the transaction which is the subject of the Civil Action, [[...]] and [[...]]'s counsel shall, at no cost or expense to the [[...]]and/or the law office of [...] cooperate and provide support to Plaintiff in the form of testimony, affidavits and/or releasing relevant documents from counsel’s closing file (redacted as necessary for purposes of preserving attorney client privilege).  (Pa1274)  (Emphasis added).  The time period between when Plaintiff settled the Lease Litigation and when they commenced the instant action is critical.  On or about April 27, 2020, a Consent Order memorializing that a settlement had been reached was filed with the Court.  (Pa1016).  Within five (5) months of settling the Lease Litigation, Plaintiff brought the Instant Action against Defendants.  (Pa0015).  In the Instant Action, on March 1, 2023, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 4:5-1 and the Entire Controversy Doctrine.  On June 9, 2023 the Honorable [...], J.S.C. granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss which is the basis for the current appeal.