Stampfel v. Eckhardt
| Decision Date | 15 August 1988 |
| Parties | Henry STAMPFEL, et al., Appellants, v. Adolph J. ECKHARDT, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Joseph Canzoneri, Franklin Square, for appellants.
Schapiro & Reich, Lindenhurst (Steven M. Schapiro and Perry S. Reich, of counsel), for respondent.
Before KOOPER, J.P., and SULLIVAN, HARWOOD and BALLETTA, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover damages for breach of contract and professional malpractice, the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Christ, J.), dated January 12, 1987, as granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was to dismiss the first cause of action, sounding in legal malpractice, as time barred.
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the defendant's motion which was to dismiss the first cause of action as time barred is denied.
The defendant, an attorney, was retained by the plaintiffs to represent them in the purchase of certain real property. At the closing on January 26, 1981, the plaintiffs learned that a portion of the parcel, measuring approximately seven by 60 feet and lying inside a fence belonging to owners of a neighboring parcel, would not be insured by their title company. The defendant represented to the plaintiffs that the problem could be easily resolved. Soon after the closing, the defendant advised the plaintiffs to remove the fence and a shed from the disputed portion of the parcel.
The adjoining landowner eventually commenced a suit to obtain record title to the disputed portion of the parcel, claiming adverse possession. When the plaintiffs sought the defendant's representation in the matter, he referred them to an associate in his own firm, apparently because he anticipated being called as a witness in the suit. The defendant's firm appeared and represented plaintiffs in the litigation, which culminated on November 20, 1984, in a judgment against them. The plaintiffs commenced this action against the defendant on or about September 5, 1986, claiming damages for legal malpractice and breach of contract.
We conclude that the "continuing representation" doctrine operated to toll the running of the Statute of Limitations ( see, Glamm v. Allen, 57 N.Y.2d 87, 453 N.Y.S.2d 674, 439 N.E.2d 390) until November 20, 1984, since it is clear that the defendant's firm continued to represent the plaintiffs in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DeStaso v. Condon Resnick, LLP
...607, 608, 647 N.Y.S.2d 806; Luk Lamellen U. Kupplungbau GmbH v. Lerner, 166 A.D.2d 505, 505–506, 560 N.Y.S.2d 787; Stampfel v. Eckhardt, 143 A.D.2d 184, 185, 531 N.Y.S.2d 814; Siegel v. Kranis, 29 A.D.2d at 480, 288 N.Y.S.2d 831; cf. Maurice W. Pomfrey & Assoc., Ltd. v. Hancock & Estabrook,......
-
Santulli v. Englert, Reilly & McHugh, P.C.
...503 N.Y.S.2d 318, 494 N.E.2d 449) and, accordingly, the doctrine of continuous representation does not apply (cf., Stampfel v. Eckhardt, 143 A.D.2d 184, 185, 531 N.Y.S.2d 814). We conclude, nonetheless, that the action is not time barred. The Court of Appeals has made it clear that an actio......
-
Farrauto, Berman, Fontana & Selznick v. Keowongwan
...Tal-Spons Corp., supra, at 623 N.Y.S.2d 604; Anderson Company v. Devine, 202 A.D.2d 382, 608 N.Y.S.2d 514 (1994); Stampfel v. Eckhardt, 143 A.D.2d 184, 531 N.Y.S.2d 814 (1988); Muller v. Sturman, 79 A.D.2d 482, 437 N.Y.S.2d 205, 208 (1981) ("... continuous representation doctrine ... envisi......
-
Golub v. Baer, Marks & Upham
...an invoice from the defendant to the plaintiffs for legal services performed in connection with this mortgage (see, Stampfel v. Eckhardt, 143 A.D.2d 184, 531 N.Y.S.2d 814; cf., Muller v. Sturman, 79 A.D.2d 482, 437 N.Y.S.2d The matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for det......