Adler v. Gershman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Adler v. Gershman

305 A.D.2d 342, 757 N.Y.S.2d 890

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 5, 2003·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Carter, J.), dated May 21, 2002, which granted the separate motions of the defendants Richard S. Gershman and Bernstein & Gershman, P.C., and the defendant Marshall A. Bernstein for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

Under CPLR 214 (6), “[a] cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice accrues on the date the malpractice was [343]*343committed, not when the client discovered it” (Julian v Carroll, 270 AD2d 457 [2000]; see Glamm v Allen, 57 NY2d 87, 95 [1982]; Goicoechea v Law Offs. of Stephen R. Kihl, 234 AD2d 507, 508 [1996]). Here, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them since the plaintiffs failed to allege a single act or omission of legal malpractice committed by the defendants within the applicable three-year limitations period.

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions either are without merit or need not be reached in light of our determination. Santucci, J.P., Krausman, Crane and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Carter, J.), dated May 21, 2002, which granted the separate motions of the defendants Richard S. Gershman and Bernstein & Gershman, P.C., and the defendant Marshall A. Bernstein for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

Under CPLR 214 (6), “[a] cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice accrues on the date the malpractice was [343]*343committed, not when the client discovered it” (Julian v Carroll, 270 AD2d 457 [2000]; see Glamm v Allen, 57 NY2d 87, 95 [1982]; Goicoechea v Law Offs. of Stephen R. Kihl, 234 AD2d 507, 508 [1996]). Here, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them since the plaintiffs failed to allege a single act or omission of legal malpractice committed by the defendants within the applicable three-year limitations period.

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions either are without merit or need not be reached in light of our determination. Santucci, J.P., Krausman, Crane and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Adler v. Gershman, 305 A.D.2d 342, 757 N.Y.S.2d 890 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

305 A.D.2d 342 (Adler v. Gershman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related