Anthoine v. Lord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Anthoine v. Lord

284 A.D.2d 233, 726 N.Y.S.2d 553, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6539

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

DecidedJune 21, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 284 A.D.2d 233 (Anthoine v. Lord) 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

Anthoine v. Lord, 284 A.D.2d 233, 726 N.Y.S.2d 553, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6539 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered April 3, 2000, dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, entered March 29, 2000, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

Assuming that plaintiffs, underwriting members of insurance syndicates, have causes of action against defendants, counsel to the syndicates, sounding in fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, legal malpractice and statutory deceptive acts and practices, based on defendants’ concealment from plaintiffs of their enormous exposure to asbestos and pollution liabilities, any such causes of action accrued in 1991, at the latest, and are barred by either a three- or six-year limitations period (CPLR 213 [8]; 214 [2], [6]). Plaintiffs had already sustained large losses as a result of their exposure to asbestos and pollution liabilities by 1991, when the reports prepared by defendants containing the information allegedly concealed became a matter of public record. Thus, the two-year discovery rule (CPLR 203 [g]) is inconsequential. Nor does the continuous representation doctrine avail plaintiffs, who had no relationship, ongoing or otherwise, with defendants, who were retained by, and had contact only with, the syndicates’ managing agents (cf., Shumsky v Eisenstein, 96 NY2d 164, 167-168). We have considered plaintiffs’ other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Tom, Andrias and Marlow, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered April 3, 2000, dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, entered March 29, 2000, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

Assuming that plaintiffs, underwriting members of insurance syndicates, have causes of action against defendants, counsel to the syndicates, sounding in fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, legal malpractice and statutory deceptive acts and practices, based on defendants’ concealment from plaintiffs of their enormous exposure to asbestos and pollution liabilities, any such causes of action accrued in 1991, at the latest, and are barred by either a three- or six-year limitations period (CPLR 213 [8]; 214 [2], [6]). Plaintiffs had already sustained large losses as a result of their exposure to asbestos and pollution liabilities by 1991, when the reports prepared by defendants containing the information allegedly concealed became a matter of public record. Thus, the two-year discovery rule (CPLR 203 [g]) is inconsequential. Nor does the continuous representation doctrine avail plaintiffs, who had no relationship, ongoing or otherwise, with defendants, who were retained by, and had contact only with, the syndicates’ managing agents (cf., Shumsky v Eisenstein, 96 NY2d 164, 167-168). We have considered plaintiffs’ other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Tom, Andrias and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D.2d 233, 726 N.Y.S.2d 553, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6539, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anthoine-v-lord-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack