Paduano v. Bootey

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

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.