Paduano v. Bootey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Paduano v. Bootey

192 A.D.2d 1119, 598 N.Y.S.2d 745, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4146

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

DecidedApril 14, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 192 A.D.2d 1119 (Paduano v. Bootey) 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

Paduano v. Bootey, 192 A.D.2d 1119, 598 N.Y.S.2d 745, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4146 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court erred by dismissing defendant’s affirmative defenses of lack of attorney-client relationship and Statute of Limitations. Questions of fact exist whether there was an attorney-client relationship between the parties at the time of the alleged malpractice in the spring of 1985 and, if there was such a relationship, whether the single contact alleged to have occurred between the parties in September 1985 was sufficient to allow plaintiffs to invoke the doctrine of continuous representation (see, Glamm v Allen, 57 NY2d 87, 94). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, Ricotta, J.— Strike Affirmative Defenses.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Pine, Fallon, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court erred by dismissing defendant’s affirmative defenses of lack of attorney-client relationship and Statute of Limitations. Questions of fact exist whether there was an attorney-client relationship between the parties at the time of the alleged malpractice in the spring of 1985 and, if there was such a relationship, whether the single contact alleged to have occurred between the parties in September 1985 was sufficient to allow plaintiffs to invoke the doctrine of continuous representation (see, Glamm v Allen, 57 NY2d 87, 94). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, Ricotta, J.— Strike Affirmative Defenses.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Pine, Fallon, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 A.D.2d 1119, 598 N.Y.S.2d 745, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4146, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paduano-v-bootey-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack