Rome v. Schmidt
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied that part of plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment dismissing defendants’ counterclaims for legal malpractice. Because those counterclaims were interposed in May 1995, they are not barred by the amendment to CPLR 214 (6), effective September 4, 1996 (L 1996, ch 623), which reduces the Statute of Limitations for claims of legal malpractice from six years to three years. The amendment to CPLR 214 (6) may not be applied retroactively to claims pending prior to its effec*861tive date (see, Board of Mgrs. v Mandel, 235…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Greene v. GreeneNew York Court of Appeals · 1982
- Matter of CoopermanNew York Court of Appeals · 1994
- Schlanger v. FlatonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995
- Board of Managers of Ocean Club v. MandelAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
- Corley v. MillerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1987
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Shirley v. DanzigerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
- Amendola v. KendziaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005
- Ashmead v. GroperAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
- Lanoce v. Anderson, Banks, Curran & DonoghueAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999
- Dowd v. Law Plan Hyatt Legal ServicesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.