Gottlieb v. Ranzenhofer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gottlieb v. Ranzenhofer

81 A.D.2d 576, 441 N.Y.S.2d 401, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11061

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

DecidedApril 6, 1981

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 81 A.D.2d 576 (Gottlieb v. Ranzenhofer) 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

Gottlieb v. Ranzenhofer, 81 A.D.2d 576, 441 N.Y.S.2d 401, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11061 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action by former clients against an attorney, inter alia, for breach of a retainer agreement, legal malpractice, and fraud and deceit, plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated December 20, 1979, as granted defendant’s motion to dismiss their first cause of action (for breach of contract) on the ground that it was barred by the three-year Statute of Limitations applicable to actions for legal malpractice. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, and motion to dismiss the first cause of action denied. Plaintiffs’ first cause of action is legally sufficient to sustain a recovery in contract. Accordingly, under the facts of this case, it was error to apply the three-year Statute of Limitations and dismiss it (cf. Boecher v Borth, 51 AD2d 598; Calhoun v Gale, 29 AD2d 766, affd 23 NY2d 756; Gautieri v New Rochelle Hosp. Assn., 4 AD2d 874, affd 5 NY2d 952). Titone, J. P., Gulotta, Cohalan and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action by former clients against an attorney, inter alia, for breach of a retainer agreement, legal malpractice, and fraud and deceit, plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated December 20, 1979, as granted defendant’s motion to dismiss their first cause of action (for breach of contract) on the ground that it was barred by the three-year Statute of Limitations applicable to actions for legal malpractice. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, and motion to dismiss the first cause of action denied. Plaintiffs’ first cause of action is legally sufficient to sustain a recovery in contract. Accordingly, under the facts of this case, it was error to apply the three-year Statute of Limitations and dismiss it (cf. Boecher v Borth, 51 AD2d 598; Calhoun v Gale, 29 AD2d 766, affd 23 NY2d 756; Gautieri v New Rochelle Hosp. Assn., 4 AD2d 874, affd 5 NY2d 952). Titone, J. P., Gulotta, Cohalan and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 A.D.2d 576, 441 N.Y.S.2d 401, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11061, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gottlieb-v-ranzenhofer-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack