Cerio v. Koldin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cerio v. Koldin

289 A.D.2d 1080, 735 N.Y.S.2d 461, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12859

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

DecidedDecember 21, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 289 A.D.2d 1080 (Cerio v. Koldin) 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

Cerio v. Koldin, 289 A.D.2d 1080, 735 N.Y.S.2d 461, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12859 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted defendants’ cross motions seeking dismissal of the complaint in this legal malpractice action, filed December 16, 1999, as time-barred. Contrary to the contention of plaintiff, the continuous representation rule does not warrant a different result. Even assuming, arguendo, that defendants maintained a continuous relationship with plaintiff pursuant to the retainer agreement, we conclude that the relationship ceased to exist when plaintiff retained new counsel and sent defendants’ law office a discharge letter dated October 1, 1996 (see, Lazzaro v Kelly, 87 AD2d 975, 976, affd 57 NY2d 630; Piliero v Adler & Stavros, 282 AD2d 511, 512; Aaron v Roemer, Wallens & Mineaux, 272 AD2d 752, 754-755, lv dismissed 96 NY2d 730; cf., Gray v Wallman & Kramer, 224 AD2d 275, 275-276). In view of our determination, we need not consider plaintiff’s remaining contentions. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Centra, J. — Dismiss Pleading.) Present — Green, J. P., Hayes, Hurlbutt, Burns and Lawton, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted defendants’ cross motions seeking dismissal of the complaint in this legal malpractice action, filed December 16, 1999, as time-barred. Contrary to the contention of plaintiff, the continuous representation rule does not warrant a different result. Even assuming, arguendo, that defendants maintained a continuous relationship with plaintiff pursuant to the retainer agreement, we conclude that the relationship ceased to exist when plaintiff retained new counsel and sent defendants’ law office a discharge letter dated October 1, 1996 (see, Lazzaro v Kelly, 87 AD2d 975, 976, affd 57 NY2d 630; Piliero v Adler & Stavros, 282 AD2d 511, 512; Aaron v Roemer, Wallens & Mineaux, 272 AD2d 752, 754-755, lv dismissed 96 NY2d 730; cf., Gray v Wallman & Kramer, 224 AD2d 275, 275-276). In view of our determination, we need not consider plaintiff’s remaining contentions. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Centra, J. — Dismiss Pleading.) Present — Green, J. P., Hayes, Hurlbutt, Burns and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 1080, 735 N.Y.S.2d 461, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12859, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cerio-v-koldin-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack