Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Nathaniel N. WILLIAMS, appellant, v. Mark K. LINDENBERG, etc., et al., respondents.
In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an amended order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Nelson, J.), entered July 30, 2004, which granted the defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) to dismiss the complaint as time-barred, and (2) an order of the same court dated October 21, 2004, which denied his motion for leave to renew the prior motion.
ORDERED that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs.
An action to recover damages for legal malpractice must be commenced within three years from accrual (see CPLR 214[6]; McCoy v. Feinman, 99 N.Y.2d 295, 301, 755 N.Y.S.2d 693, 785 N.E.2d 714). Here, the defendants sustained their burden of making a prima facie showing that the complaint was time-barred by submitting evidence that the plaintiff's malpractice claim accrued no later than January 2001, when his time to file a notice of appeal from the adverse order in the underlying mortgage foreclosure action expired, and that this action was not commenced until more than three years later (id.; see Gravel v. Cicola, 297 A.D.2d 620, 747 N.Y.S.2d 33). The evidence which the plaintiff submitted in opposition to the motion was insufficient to raise a triable of fact as to whether the continuous representation doctrine tolled the running of the statute of limitations beyond January 2001 (see McCoy v. Feinman, supra ). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint as time-barred.
The Supreme Court also properly denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to renew, since he failed to offer a reasonable justification for his failure to submit the additional evidence upon which he relied with the original motion (see R.R. Ragette, Inc. v. D'Incecco, 17 A.D.3d 436, 793 N.Y.S.2d 141; Gohrig v. Porcelli, 17 A.D.3d 314, 791 N.Y.S.2d 835; Hannalyn Realty Co. v. McLaughlin, 10 A.D.3d 409, 780 N.Y.S.2d 786).
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: December 05, 2005
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)