Boslow Family Ltd. Partnership v. Kaplan & Kaplan, PLLC
This text of 52 A.D.3d 417 (Boslow Family Ltd. Partnership v. Kaplan & Kaplan, PLLC) 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.
Opinion
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy Friedman, J.), entered November 1, 2007, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as time-barred and denied plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing defendants’ second affirmative defense based on the statute of limitations, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Since plaintiffs’ claim, while cast in contract, is essentially that defendants failed to perform services in a professional, nonnegligent manner, it is governed by the three-year statute of limitations (Matter of R.M. Kliment & Frances Halsband, Architects [McKinsey & Co., Inc.], 3 NY3d 538 [2004]). Plaintiffs have not identified any particular provision of a written retainer agreement whereby defendants contracted to provide a particular result above and beyond what they might be expected to accomplish using due care (id. at 542-543; see also Sarasota, Inc. v Kurzman & Eisenberg, LLP, 28 AD3d 237 [2006]). Concur— Lippman, P.J., Tom, Andrias and Saxe, JJ. [See 2007 NY Slip Op 33554(U).]
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
52 A.D.3d 417, 860 N.Y.S.2d 526, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boslow-family-ltd-partnership-v-kaplan-kaplan-pllc-nyappdiv-2008.