Housberg v. Baker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Housberg v. Baker

209 A.D.2d 670, 619 N.Y.S.2d 956

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

DecidedNovember 28, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 209 A.D.2d 670 (Housberg v. Baker) 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

Housberg v. Baker, 209 A.D.2d 670, 619 N.Y.S.2d 956 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, for conversion and breach of a fiduciary duty, the defendant Hal Baker appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Luciano, J.), dated May 12, 1992, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to serve an amended complaint and denied his cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly found that the second cause of action of the amended complaint, which sounds in legal malpractice, seeks damages for breach of contract. Thus, it is not barred by the three-year Statute of Limitations found in CPLR 214 (6) (see, Santulli v Englert, Reilly & McHugh, 78 NY2d 700, 709). In addition, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against him. Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, O’Brien and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, for conversion and breach of a fiduciary duty, the defendant Hal Baker appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Luciano, J.), dated May 12, 1992, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to serve an amended complaint and denied his cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly found that the second cause of action of the amended complaint, which sounds in legal malpractice, seeks damages for breach of contract. Thus, it is not barred by the three-year Statute of Limitations found in CPLR 214 (6) (see, Santulli v Englert, Reilly & McHugh, 78 NY2d 700, 709). In addition, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against him. Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, O’Brien and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 A.D.2d 670, 619 N.Y.S.2d 956, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/housberg-v-baker-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack