Merritt v. Blumenthal

The motion court correctly applied CPLR 202, New York’s “borrowing statute,” in finding that plaintiff’s claims of transactional malpractice are untimely under the governing two-year Pennsylvania statute of limitations (see 42 Pa Cons Stat § 5524 [3]). Plaintiff never argued before the motion court, as she does now on appeal, that the Florida statute of limitations should apply to her malpractice claims, or that those claims sound in contract, rather than tort (see 42 Pa Cons Stat § 5525), and we decline to consider those arguments raised here for the first time (see Voorheesville Rod & Gun…