Proskauer Rose v. Asia Electronics Holding Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Proskauer Rose v. Asia Electronics Holding Co.

2 A.D.3d 196, 767 N.Y.S.2d 771, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12987

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

DecidedDecember 9, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 2 A.D.3d 196 (Proskauer Rose v. Asia Electronics Holding 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

Proskauer Rose v. Asia Electronics Holding Co., 2 A.D.3d 196, 767 N.Y.S.2d 771, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12987 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Tolub, J), entered September 25, 2002, which, in an action to recover a legal fee, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant’s motion to amend its answer so as to assert, inter alia, counterclaims for legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The proposed counterclaims for legal malpractice were correctly rejected as time-barred since defendant moved to amend more than three years after the alleged acts of malpractice (CPLR 214 [6]; see McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 301 [2002]). Supreme Court correctly rejected defendant’s allegations of breach of fiduciary duty as duplicative of the malpractice claim. We have considered and rejected defendant’s arguments that the relation-back and continuous representation doctrines save this action. Concur—Rosenberger, J.P., Lerner, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Tolub, J), entered September 25, 2002, which, in an action to recover a legal fee, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant’s motion to amend its answer so as to assert, inter alia, counterclaims for legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The proposed counterclaims for legal malpractice were correctly rejected as time-barred since defendant moved to amend more than three years after the alleged acts of malpractice (CPLR 214 [6]; see McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 301 [2002]). Supreme Court correctly rejected defendant’s allegations of breach of fiduciary duty as duplicative of the malpractice claim. We have considered and rejected defendant’s arguments that the relation-back and continuous representation doctrines save this action. Concur—Rosenberger, J.P., Lerner, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 A.D.3d 196, 767 N.Y.S.2d 771, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12987, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/proskauer-rose-v-asia-electronics-holding-co-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack