Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Lawrence v. Miller

New York Court of Appeals

Decided October 28, 2014Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partRivera, J.

I concur with the majority that the retainer agreement is enforceable. However, I disagree with the majority that the estate’s claim seeking a return of the gifts is untimely, and therefore I dissent from this portion of the opinion. I would hold that the continuous representation doctrine tolled the estate’s claim. As the Special Referee stated, which the Surrogate confirmed, “the nexus between the attorneys’ conduct complained of (the 1998 gifts) and the subject of their representation both before and for many years afterward is sufficient to apply the continuing representation doctrine for…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Nesbit v. . LockmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1866
  2. In re Christine D.New York Court of Appeals · 1992
  3. In re the Estate of EckertNew York Surrogate's Court · 1978
  4. Snook v. SullivanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1900
  5. Reoux v. ReouxAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1957

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API