Shivers v. Siegel

11 A.D.3d 447, 782 N.Y.S.2d 752, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11565
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 4, 2004
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 11 A.D.3d 447 (Shivers v. Siegel) 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
Shivers v. Siegel, 11 A.D.3d 447, 782 N.Y.S.2d 752, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11565 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kelly, J.), dated October 10, 2003, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The three-year statute of limitations in a legal malpractice action (see CPLR 214 [6]) runs from the time of the alleged malpractice, not from when it is discovered (see McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 301, 305 [2002]; Alicanti v Bianco, 2 AD3d 373, 374 [2003], lv denied 3 NY3d 602 [2004]; Venturella-Ferretti v Kinzler, 306 AD2d 465, 466 [2003]). Here, the plaintiffs legal malpractice claim accrued no later than November 1998, when she discharged the defendant as her attorney (see Daniels v Lebit, 299 AD2d 310 [2002]; Wester v Sussman, 287 AD2d 618 [2001]).

The Supreme Court properly determined that the legal malpractice cause of action was time-barred since the plaintiff commenced this action more than three years after her attorney-client relationship with the defendant ended (see Daniels v Lebit, supra; Wester v Sussman, supra).

Similarly, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the cause of action alleging breach of contract as it was duplicative of the malpractice claim and arose from the same facts as that claim (see Daniels v Lebit, supra; Levine v Lacher & Lovell-Taylor, 256 AD2d 147,151 [1998]).

The plaintiffs remaining contention is without merit. Smith, J.P., Crane, Cozier and Lifson, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Kliger-Weiss Infosystems, Inc. v. Ruskin Moscou Faltischek, P.C.
2018 NY Slip Op 1456 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Vermont Mutual Insurance v. McCabe & Mack, LLP
105 A.D.3d 837 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Feldman v. Finkelstein & Partners, LLP
76 A.D.2d 703 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Rock City Sound, Inc. v. Bashian & Farber, LLP
74 A.D.3d 1168 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Conklin v. Owen
72 A.D.3d 1006 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Uzzle v. Nunzie Court Homeowners Ass'n
70 A.D.3d 928 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Maiolini v. Fallon
61 A.D.3d 644 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Mahler v. Campagna
60 A.D.3d 1009 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Kvetnaya v. Tylo
49 A.D.3d 608 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Katz v. Rubin
48 A.D.3d 640 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Wright v. Meyers & Spencer, LLP
46 A.D.3d 805 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Town of Wallkill v. Rosenstein
40 A.D.3d 972 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Cummings v. Donovan
36 A.D.3d 648 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Amodeo v. Kolodny, P.C.
35 A.D.3d 773 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Shaya B. Pacific, LLC v. Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP
38 A.D.3d 34 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Gelfand v. Oliver
29 A.D.3d 736 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Tortura v. Sullivan Papain Block McGrath & Cannavo, P.C.
21 A.D.3d 1082 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
11 A.D.3d 447, 782 N.Y.S.2d 752, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11565, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shivers-v-siegel-nyappdiv-2004.