Ainbinder v. Chernis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ainbinder v. Chernis

248 A.D.2d 337, 669 N.Y.S.2d 829, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2049

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 2, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 248 A.D.2d 337 (Ainbinder v. Chernis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ainbinder v. Chernis, 248 A.D.2d 337, 669 N.Y.S.2d 829, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2049 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), entered March 25, 1997, which granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint as barred by the Statute of Limitations.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that in reality the [338]*338plaintiffs complaint asserted a claim of legal malpractice, not fraud (see, Garber v Ravitch, 186 AD2d 361), and, thus, was barred by the Statute of Limitations (see, CPLR 214 [6]; see also, Panigeon v Aliance Nav. Line, 1997 WL 473385 [US Dist Ct, SD NY, Aug. 19, 1997]; Russo v Waller, 171 Misc 2d 707).

Rosenblatt, J. P., Sullivan, Joy, Altman and Luciano, 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 plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), entered March 25, 1997, which granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint as barred by the Statute of Limitations.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that in reality the [338]*338plaintiffs complaint asserted a claim of legal malpractice, not fraud (see, Garber v Ravitch, 186 AD2d 361), and, thus, was barred by the Statute of Limitations (see, CPLR 214 [6]; see also, Panigeon v Aliance Nav. Line, 1997 WL 473385 [US Dist Ct, SD NY, Aug. 19, 1997]; Russo v Waller, 171 Misc 2d 707).

Rosenblatt, J. P., Sullivan, Joy, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 337, 669 N.Y.S.2d 829, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2049, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ainbinder-v-chernis-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack