Buday v. Gottlieb, Rackman & Reisman, P.C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Buday v. Gottlieb, Rackman & Reisman, P.C.

140 A.D.3d 667, 33 N.Y.S.3d 727

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

DecidedJune 30, 2016

Docket1630 101061/14

StatusPublished

This text of 140 A.D.3d 667 (Buday v. Gottlieb, Rackman & Reisman, P.C.) 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

Buday v. Gottlieb, Rackman & Reisman, P.C., 140 A.D.3d 667, 33 N.Y.S.3d 727 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard F. Braun, J.), entered on or about July 6, 2015, which granted defendants Gottlieb, Rackman & Reisman, PC. and Maria Savio’s motion to dismiss the complaint as against them, with prejudice, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff failed to make any showing that the statutes of limitations applicable to her claims against defendants Got-tlieb, Rackman & Reisman and Maria Savio were tolled by the continuous representation doctrine (see Matter of Merker, 18 AD3d 332 [1st Dept 2005]). Plaintiff alleges that defendants ended their legal representation of her on March 22, 2007 (approximately 7V2 years before she commenced this action); she *668 does not allege that they performed any legal services on her behalf after that date.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Renwick, Moskowitz, Gische and Gesmer, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard F. Braun, J.), entered on or about July 6, 2015, which granted defendants Gottlieb, Rackman & Reisman, PC. and Maria Savio’s motion to dismiss the complaint as against them, with prejudice, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff failed to make any showing that the statutes of limitations applicable to her claims against defendants Got-tlieb, Rackman & Reisman and Maria Savio were tolled by the continuous representation doctrine (see Matter of Merker, 18 AD3d 332 [1st Dept 2005]). Plaintiff alleges that defendants ended their legal representation of her on March 22, 2007 (approximately 7V2 years before she commenced this action); she *668 does not allege that they performed any legal services on her behalf after that date.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Renwick, Moskowitz, Gische and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A.D.3d 667, 33 N.Y.S.3d 727, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buday-v-gottlieb-rackman-reisman-pc-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack