Gotay v Breitbart, 12 NY3d 894 (2009)

2009 NY Slip Op 05209 [12 NY3d 894]
June 25, 2009
Court of Appeals

[*1]

Bernadette Gotay, Respondent,
v
David Breitbart et al., Defendants, and Michael Handwerker et al., Appellants.

Decided June 25, 2009

Gotay v Breitbart, 58 AD3d 25, reversed.

{**12 NY3d at 894} OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed, with costs, motions for summary judgment by defendants-appellants granted and certified question answered in the negative. Plaintiff’s legal malpractice claim was not brought within the applicable statute of limitations period, and defendants-appellants established as a matter of law that the continuous representation doctrine does not apply.

Concur: Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones. Taking no part: Chief Judge Lippman.On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed, with costs, motions for summary judgment by defendants-appellants granted and certified question answered in the negative. Plaintiff’s legal malpractice claim was not brought within the applicable statute of limitations period, and defendants-appellants established as a matter of law that the continuous representation doctrine does not apply.

Concur: Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones. Taking no part: Chief Judge Lippman.