Lee v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lee v. Smith

272 A.D.2d 526, 708 N.Y.S.2d 883, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5822

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

DecidedMay 22, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 272 A.D.2d 526 (Lee v. Smith) 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

Lee v. Smith, 272 A.D.2d 526, 708 N.Y.S.2d 883, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5822 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice and breach of contract, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk [527]*527County (Doyle, J.), dated May 17, 1999, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the applicable Statute of Limitations (see, Santulli v Englert, Reilly & McHugh, 78 NY2d 700) was tolled since they continuously represented the plaintiffs by performing legal services in connection with obtaining approvals from the Town of Riverhead for the development of the plaintiffs’ parcel. Those legal services were related to the matter from which the malpractice claim arose (see, Weiss v Manfredi, 83 NY2d 974; Kuritzky v Sirlin & Sirlin, 231 AD2d 607; Luk Lamellen U. Kupplungbau GmbH v Lerner, 166 AD2d 505). Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, Altman and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice and breach of contract, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk [527]*527County (Doyle, J.), dated May 17, 1999, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the applicable Statute of Limitations (see, Santulli v Englert, Reilly & McHugh, 78 NY2d 700) was tolled since they continuously represented the plaintiffs by performing legal services in connection with obtaining approvals from the Town of Riverhead for the development of the plaintiffs’ parcel. Those legal services were related to the matter from which the malpractice claim arose (see, Weiss v Manfredi, 83 NY2d 974; Kuritzky v Sirlin & Sirlin, 231 AD2d 607; Luk Lamellen U. Kupplungbau GmbH v Lerner, 166 AD2d 505). Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, Altman and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 526, 708 N.Y.S.2d 883, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5822, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lee-v-smith-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack