Legal Opinion
Nickel v. Tortora
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided December 2, 2008PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
The Supreme Court correctly, in effect, granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) as time-barred. The plaintiffs cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice is subject to a three-year statute of limitations (see CPLR 214 [6]). Since the cause of action accrued no later than May 2002 and was not interposed until June 2007 it was time-barred (see McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 301 [2002]; Glamm v Allen, 57 NY2d 87, 93 [1982]). The toll of the limitations period provided by CPLR 208 is available “to only those…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- McCoy v. FeinmanNew York Court of Appeals · 2002
- Brick v. Cohn-Hall-Marx Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1937
- McCarthy v. Volkswagen of America, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1982
- Glamm v. AllenNew York Court of Appeals · 1982
- Powers Mercantile Corp. v. FeinbergAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1985
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Frumento v. On Rite Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009