Rabito v. Tonetti

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rabito v. Tonetti

253 A.D.2d 750, 677 N.Y.S.2d 493, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9413

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

DecidedSeptember 14, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 253 A.D.2d 750 (Rabito v. Tonetti) 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

Rabito v. Tonetti, 253 A.D.2d 750, 677 N.Y.S.2d 493, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9413 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Floyd, J.), dated August 4, 1997, which granted the motion of the defendants Joseph C. Tonetti and Law Offices of Cordes & Tonetti to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them as barred by the Statute of Limitations.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the appellants’ contention, their complaint contains no cause of action based on fraud. Nothing in the record supports a finding that they have such a cause of action (see, Estate of Boyd v Gering, Gross & Gross, 226 AD2d 489; Weiss v Manfredi, 83 NY2d 974). Hence, the rule under CPLR [751]*751213 (8) that a cause of action based on fraud accrues when the fraud is discovered is inapplicable.

The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Sullivan and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Floyd, J.), dated August 4, 1997, which granted the motion of the defendants Joseph C. Tonetti and Law Offices of Cordes & Tonetti to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them as barred by the Statute of Limitations.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the appellants’ contention, their complaint contains no cause of action based on fraud. Nothing in the record supports a finding that they have such a cause of action (see, Estate of Boyd v Gering, Gross & Gross, 226 AD2d 489; Weiss v Manfredi, 83 NY2d 974). Hence, the rule under CPLR [751]*751213 (8) that a cause of action based on fraud accrues when the fraud is discovered is inapplicable.

The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Sullivan and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 A.D.2d 750, 677 N.Y.S.2d 493, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9413, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rabito-v-tonetti-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack