Boslow Family Ltd. Partnership v. Kaplan & Kaplan, PLLC

52 A.D.3d 417, 860 N.Y.S.2d 526
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 26, 2008·Published·Cited by 3 cases

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

Boslow Family Ltd. Partnership v. Kaplan & Kaplan, PLLC, 52 A.D.3d 417, 860 N.Y.S.2d 526 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

52 A.D.3d 417 (Boslow Family Ltd. Partnership v. Kaplan & Kaplan, PLLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

New York State Workers' Compensation Board v. SGRisk, LLC
116 A.D.3d 1148 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Zeff Design
60 A.D.3d 453 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)