Hirschfeld v. Weinick, Sanders & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hirschfeld v. Weinick, Sanders & Co.

292 A.D.2d 344, 739 N.Y.S.2d 576, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2230

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

DecidedMarch 4, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 292 A.D.2d 344 (Hirschfeld v. Weinick, Sanders & Co.) 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

Hirschfeld v. Weinick, Sanders & Co., 292 A.D.2d 344, 739 N.Y.S.2d 576, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2230 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, in effect, to recover damages for professional malpractice, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated October 23, 2000, which granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint and denied their cross motion for leave to serve an amended complaint.

[345]*345Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contentions, the causes of action asserted in both the complaint and the proposed amended complaint sounded solely in professional malpractice. Accordingly, the applicable statute of limitations is three years (see, CPLR 214 [6]; Ackerman v Price Waterhouse, 84 NY2d 535, 541). Since the latest tax returns prepared by the defendants that were subjects of the complaints were executed and filed by the plaintiffs in October 1996, and the original complaint was not filed until at least June 2000, both complaints are time barred (see, CPLR 214 [6]).

In view of this determination, the plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are either academic, without merit, or unpreserved for appellate review. Prudenti, P.J., Altman, S. Miller and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, in effect, to recover damages for professional malpractice, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated October 23, 2000, which granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint and denied their cross motion for leave to serve an amended complaint.

[345]*345Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contentions, the causes of action asserted in both the complaint and the proposed amended complaint sounded solely in professional malpractice. Accordingly, the applicable statute of limitations is three years (see, CPLR 214 [6]; Ackerman v Price Waterhouse, 84 NY2d 535, 541). Since the latest tax returns prepared by the defendants that were subjects of the complaints were executed and filed by the plaintiffs in October 1996, and the original complaint was not filed until at least June 2000, both complaints are time barred (see, CPLR 214 [6]).

In view of this determination, the plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are either academic, without merit, or unpreserved for appellate review. Prudenti, P.J., Altman, S. Miller and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

292 A.D.2d 344, 739 N.Y.S.2d 576, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2230, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hirschfeld-v-weinick-sanders-co-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack