Carney v. Finn
| Decision Date | 06 December 1976 |
| Parties | James M. CARNEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jerry M. FINN, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
James M. Carney, pro se.
Joseph S. Pecora, Newark, for defendant-respondent (Joseph F. Faccone, Jr., Livingston, attorney).
Before Judges FRITZ, CRAHAY and ARD.
The single issue here concerns the applicable statute of limitations in a legal malpractice action.
On June 1, 1972 defendant attorney handled three claim petitions for plaintiff in the Division of Workmen's Compensation. Plaintiff complains that defendant's handling of the case resulted in a reduced award. Thereafter on January 28, 1975 plaintiff filed a complaint in the Essex County District Court against defendant alleging legal malpractice. Defendant's amended answer asserted the action was barred by N.J.S.A. 2A:14--2, the two-year statute of limitations. During the reargument of the motion to permit amending the answer to assert the aforementioned statute of limitations as a defense, the trial judge summarily dismissed the complaint, holding that the action was barred by N.J.S.A. 2A:14--2. We hold this was error.
There is no statute expressly dealing with an action sounded in legal malpractice. N.J.S.A. 2A:14--1 (the six-year statute) applies to 'tortious injury to the rights of another * * * or for recovery upon a contractual claim or liability * * *.' N.J.S.A. 2A:14--2 (the two-year statute) applies to '(e) very action at law for an injury to the person caused by the wrongful act, neglect or default of any person * * *.' We are satisfied the two-year statute applies only where the gravamen of the plaintiff's complaint is injury to the person. Clearly, we do not deal here with a personal injury claim but rather an assertion that an attorney engaged for a particular purpose was negligent in the handling of it, resulting in pecuniary loss to appellant. Such a claim comes under N.J.S.A. 2A:14--1 (the six-year statute) and is therefore not barred. Fuschetti v. Bierman, 128 N.J.Super. 290, 294, 319 A.2d 781 (Law Div.1974). Accord, Hillhouse v. McDowell, 219 Tenn. 362, 410 S.W.2d 162, 166 (Sup.Ct.1966); Cf. Barrett v. Burt, 250 F.Supp. 904, 906 (S.D.Iowa 1966).
Reversed and remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grunwald v. Bronkesh
...such action shall have accrued." This six-year limitations period applies to claims for legal malpractice. Carney v. Finn, 145 N.J.Super. 234, 235-36, 367 A.2d 458 (App.Div.1976); Fuschetti v. Bierman, 128 N.J.Super. 290, 294, 319 A.2d 781 (Law Div.1974). See also, Mant v. Gillespie, 189 N.......
-
Begelman & Orlow, P.C. v. Ferara, Civil Action No. 12-329
...summary judgment must be granted as to the claims of malpractice. McGrogan v. Till, 167 N.J. 414, 425 (2001); Carney v. Finn, 145 N.J. Super. 234, 236 (App. Div. 1976). See, Rosenberg v. Cahill, 99 N.J. 318, 325 (1985); Sommers v. McKinney, 287 N.J. Super. 1, 10 -11 (App. Div. 1996); Aldrid......
-
Sentry Select Ins. Co. v. Clark
...malpractice arises where an "attorney engaged for a particular purpose was negligent in the handling of it." (quoting Carney v. Finn, 145 N.J. Super. 234, 236, 367 A.2d 458 (App. Div. 1976))). Even if SSI's coverage counsel was responsible for "evaluating, preserving, and pursuing" claims a......
-
Mant v. Gillespie
...do not dispute that the Mants' claim is subject to the six-year limitation fixed by N.J.S.A. 2A:14-1. See Carney v. Finn, 145 N.J.Super. 234, 367 A.2d 458 (App.Div.1976). Nor do they dispute that the cause of action is, as found by the trial judge, subject to the "discovery" rule first anno......