Hershco v. Gordon & Gordon

Citation155 A.D.3d 1006,64 N.Y.S.3d 589 (Mem)
Decision Date29 November 2017
Docket NumberIndex No. 707935/14,2015–06617
Parties Yaron HERSHCO, et al., appellants, v. GORDON & GORDON, et al., respondents, et al., defendants.
CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division

Andrew Lavoott Bluestone, New York, NY, for appellants.

Gordon & Gordon, P.C., Forest Hills, N.Y. (Jason S. Matuskiewicz of counsel), for respondents.

RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (McDonald, J.), dated March 18, 2015, which granted the motion of the defendants Gordon & Gordon, Peter S. Gordon, and Peter S. Thomas pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them as time-barred.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs in this action retained the defendants Gordon & Gordon, Peter S. Gordon, and Peter S. Thomas (hereinafter collectively the Gordon defendants), as trial counsel to defend the plaintiffs in actions brought in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (hereinafter the federal actions). The retainer agreement provided that the Gordon defendants were retained "in order to secure a jury verdict" in the federal actions. The federal actions were consolidated, and a jury verdict was rendered in the federal actions on June 1, 2011. On October 27, 2014, the plaintiffs commenced this action against, among others, the Gordon defendants, who moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them as time-barred. The Supreme Court granted that motion, and the plaintiffs appeal.

The Supreme Court properly granted the motion of the Gordon defendants pursuant to CPLR 3211(5)(a) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them as time-barred. The statute of limitations applicable to actions sounding in legal malpractice is three years "regardless of whether the underlying theory is based in contract or tort" ( CPLR 214[6] ). The limitations period begins to run from the time of the alleged malpractice (see Shumsky v. Eisenstein, 96 N.Y.2d 164, 166, 726 N.Y.S.2d 365, 750 N.E.2d 67 ).

Here, the plaintiffs' claims against the Gordon defendants could have accrued no later than June 2011. Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, the statute of limitations was not tolled beyond...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Spitzer v. Newman
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 25 Julio 2018
    ...750 N.E.2d 67 ; Ackerman v. Price Waterhouse, 84 N.Y.2d 535, 542–543, 620 N.Y.S.2d 318, 644 N.E.2d 1009 ; Hershco v. Gordon & Gordon, 155 A.D.3d 1006, 64 N.Y.S.3d 589 ; Stein Indus., Inc. v. Certilman Balin Adler & Hyman, LLP, 149 A.D.3d at 789, 51 N.Y.S.3d 183 ; Landow v. Snow Becker Kraus......
  • Pecoraro v. Tribuzio, 2016–08377
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 29 Noviembre 2017
    ...insofar as asserted against the defendant Lucia Tribuzio.ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with 64 N.Y.S.3d 589costs, and that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defe......
  • Greenpoint Mortg. Corp. v. Lamberti
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 29 Noviembre 2017
    ...predecessors in interest. Furthermore, PE–NC should not recover interest on the counsel fees awarded to it. Paragraphs 7 and 21 of the 155 A.D.3d 1006mortgage are inconsistent regarding whether interest could be recovered on counsel fees. Since "ambiguities in a contractual instrument will ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT