Ryan v. Borg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ryan v. Borg

88 A.D.2d 637, 450 N.Y.S.2d 767, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16853

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

DecidedMay 17, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 88 A.D.2d 637 (Ryan v. Borg) 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

Ryan v. Borg, 88 A.D.2d 637, 450 N.Y.S.2d 767, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16853 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a legal malpractice action, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Durante, J.), dated October 24,1979, which denied his motion to dismiss the complaint, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd [a], par 5), on the ground that the action cannot be maintained because of the expiration of the Statute of Limitations prior to commencement of the action. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, the defendant’s motion is to be treated as a motion for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd [c]), and the matter is remitted to Special Term for a hearing consistent herewith. The date when the attorney-client relationship terminated, and hence, whether the action is time barred, cannot be established from the conflicting evidence in the record. Pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd [c]) there should be an immediate trial to resolve this issue. Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Brown and Rubin, JJ., concur.

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

— In a legal malpractice action, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Durante, J.), dated October 24,1979, which denied his motion to dismiss the complaint, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd [a], par 5), on the ground that the action cannot be maintained because of the expiration of the Statute of Limitations prior to commencement of the action. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, the defendant’s motion is to be treated as a motion for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd [c]), and the matter is remitted to Special Term for a hearing consistent herewith. The date when the attorney-client relationship terminated, and hence, whether the action is time barred, cannot be established from the conflicting evidence in the record. Pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd [c]) there should be an immediate trial to resolve this issue. Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Brown and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 A.D.2d 637, 450 N.Y.S.2d 767, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16853, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ryan-v-borg-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack