Hudson Envelope Corp. v. Klausner

• Decision Date: 07 April 1998
• Citation: 670 N.Y.S.2d 104,249 A.D.2d 31
• Parties: 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 3108 HUDSON ENVELOPE CORP., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lawrence KLAUSNER, et al., Defendants-Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 104

670 N.Y.S.2d 104

1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 3108

HUDSON ENVELOPE CORP., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lawrence KLAUSNER, et al., Defendants-Respondents.

Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, First Department.

April 7, 1998.

Robert S. Nussbaum, for plaintiff-appellant.

Lisa L. Shrewsberry, Michael Wexelbaum, for defendants-respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman J.), entered March 14, 1997, which, in an action by plaintiff insured against its insurer, its broker and the broker's employers to recover premium payments made for an annually-renewed employee health insurance policy that allegedly duplicated coverage that plaintiff already had, granted defendants' motions to dismiss the action as barred by the Statute of Limitations, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The action was properly dismissed on the ground that, assuming that the broker owed plaintiff a professional-like duty to advise it of its insurance coverage needs, the continuous representation doctrine does not apply, and that any cause of action plaintiff might have is therefore barred by the Statute of Limitations, which, assuming in plaintiff's favor was six years, began to run when the allegedly unnecessary policy was first procured some 12 years before commencement of the action. As noted by the IAS court, neither the complaint nor plaintiff's opposing papers allege any specific advice after procurement of the original policy, and otherwise fail to allege continuous representation in connection with that particular transaction, as opposed to the mere continuation of a general professional relationship (see, Nykorchuck v. Henriques, 78 N.Y.2d 255, 258-259, 573 N.Y.S.2d 434, 577 N.E.2d 1026; Luk Lamellen U. Kupplungbau GmbH v. Lerner, 166 A.D.2d 505, 507, 560 N.Y.S.2d 787). Nor is there merit to plaintiff's claim that the complaint is viable insofar as based on policy renewals within six years of the action's commencement, since annual renewals, effected with no further discussions between plaintiff and the broker or independent acts of malpractice, constitute only new instances of damage, and are therefore irrelevant for limitations analysis (see, Ely-Cruikshank Co. v. Bank of Montreal, 81 N.Y.2d 399, 402, 599 N.Y.S.2d 501, 615 N.E.2d 985). We have considered plaintiff's other arguments and find them to be without merit.

MILONAS, J.P., and NARDELLI, MAZZARELLI and SAXE, JJ., concur.