Ainbinder v. Chernis

248 A.D.2d 337, 669 N.Y.S.2d 829, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2049
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 2, 1998·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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

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).

248 A.D.2d 337 (Ainbinder v. Chernis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kelly v. Cesarano, Haque & Khan, P. C.
178 Misc. 2d 176 (New York Supreme Court, 1998)
Shirley v. Danziger
252 A.D.2d 969 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)