Spinale v. Tenzer Greenblatt, LLP

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Spinale v. Tenzer Greenblatt, LLP

309 A.D.2d 632, 765 N.Y.S.2d 786, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10904

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

DecidedOctober 21, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 309 A.D.2d 632 (Spinale v. Tenzer Greenblatt, LLP) 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

Spinale v. Tenzer Greenblatt, LLP, 309 A.D.2d 632, 765 N.Y.S.2d 786, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10904 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Tolub, J.), entered April 15, 2002, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint as time-barred, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In determining the applicable statutory period, the reality and essence of a cause of action, rather than what its proponent has named it, governs (see Bunker v Bunker, 80 AD2d 817, 818 [1981], citing Brick v Cohn-Hall-Marx Co., 276 NY 259, 264 [1937]). Although plaintiffs pleaded causes of action nominally for restitution and unjust enrichment, those causes are based on the same allegations as their causes for legal malpractice. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ causes are governed by the three-year limitations period for legal malpractice (CPLR 214 [6]) and, as such, are time-barred. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Ellerin, Friedman and Gonzalez, 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 April 15, 2002, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint as time-barred, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In determining the applicable statutory period, the reality and essence of a cause of action, rather than what its proponent has named it, governs (see Bunker v Bunker, 80 AD2d 817, 818 [1981], citing Brick v Cohn-Hall-Marx Co., 276 NY 259, 264 [1937]). Although plaintiffs pleaded causes of action nominally for restitution and unjust enrichment, those causes are based on the same allegations as their causes for legal malpractice. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ causes are governed by the three-year limitations period for legal malpractice (CPLR 214 [6]) and, as such, are time-barred. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Ellerin, Friedman and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

309 A.D.2d 632, 765 N.Y.S.2d 786, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10904, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spinale-v-tenzer-greenblatt-llp-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack