Legal Opinion
In re the Arbitration between Kliment & Halsband & McKinsey & Co.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided January 13, 2004PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Andrias, J.P.
The question presented is whether respondent’s claim sounding in breach of contract, but essentially alleging professional malpractice, is barred by the three-year period of limitations of CPLR 214 (6).
CPLR 214 (6) provides that an action to recover damages for malpractice, other than medical, dental or podiatric malpractice, must be commenced within three years, regardless of whether the underlying theory is based in contract or tort. The section was amended in 1996 (L 1996, ch 623) to repeal a line of Court of Appeals decisions, including Sears, Roebuck &…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Enco Associates, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1977
- Santulli v. Englert, Reilly & McHugh, P. C.New York Court of Appeals · 1992
- Chase Scientific Research, Inc. v. Nia Group, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 2001
- Ruffolo v. GarbariniAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
- Saint Alexander's Church v. McKennaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002
3Cited by7 opinions
- MATTER OF ARBITRATION BETWEEN KLIMENT & McKINSEY & CO.New York Court of Appeals · 2004
- McDonald v. Edelman & Edelman, P.C.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
- In re the Arbitration between Kliment & McKinsey & Co.New York Court of Appeals · 2004
- Lewin v. Law Offices of Godfrey G. BrownCivil Court of the City of New York · 2005
- McDonald v. Edelman & EdelmanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.