Americana Capital Corp. v. Nardella

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Americana Capital Corp. v. Nardella

96 A.D.3d 562, 946 N.Y.S.2d 470

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

DecidedJune 19, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 96 A.D.3d 562 (Americana Capital Corp. v. Nardella) 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

Americana Capital Corp. v. Nardella, 96 A.D.3d 562, 946 N.Y.S.2d 470 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Saliann Scarpulla, J.), entered November 16, 2011, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs cause of action alleging legal malpractice, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs legal malpractice claim was not barred by the statute of limitations (see CPLR 214 [6]). Plaintiff alleges that the deceased negligently drafted a security agreement preventing plaintiff, as the creditor, from being able to enforce the agreement as against the debtor once the debtor defaulted.

Plaintiffs legal malpractice claim accrued no earlier than when the agreement was executed, which occurred on November 29, 2002, the date of the last signature on the agreement (see McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295 [2002]), and this action was commenced less than three years later. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, DeGrasse, Richter and Abdus-Salaam, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2011 NY Slip Op 33002(U).]

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Saliann Scarpulla, J.), entered November 16, 2011, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs cause of action alleging legal malpractice, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs legal malpractice claim was not barred by the statute of limitations (see CPLR 214 [6]). Plaintiff alleges that the deceased negligently drafted a security agreement preventing plaintiff, as the creditor, from being able to enforce the agreement as against the debtor once the debtor defaulted.

Plaintiffs legal malpractice claim accrued no earlier than when the agreement was executed, which occurred on November 29, 2002, the date of the last signature on the agreement (see McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295 [2002]), and this action was commenced less than three years later. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, DeGrasse, Richter and Abdus-Salaam, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2011 NY Slip Op 33002(U).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 A.D.3d 562, 946 N.Y.S.2d 470, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/americana-capital-corp-v-nardella-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack