Tsafatinos v. Lee David Auerbach, P.C.
| Decision Date | 25 January 2011 |
| Citation | 80 A.D.3d 749,915 N.Y.S.2d 500 |
| Parties | Stamatiki TSAFATINOS, et al., appellants, v. LEE DAVID AUERBACH, P.C., et al., respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
80 A.D.3d 749
Stamatiki TSAFATINOS, et al., appellants,
v.
LEE DAVID AUERBACH, P.C., et al., respondents.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jan. 25, 2011.
Stamatiki Tsafatinos and Demetrios Tsafatinos, Brooklyn, N.Y., appellants pro se.
Housman & Associates, P.C., Tarrytown, N.Y. (Brian J. Divney of counsel), for respondents Eugenia M. Vecchio & Associates and Eugenia M. Vecchio.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for legal malpractice, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nicolai, J.), entered December 8, 2009, which granted the motion of the defendants Lee David Auerbach, P.C., and Lee David Auerbach, and the separate motion of the defendants Eugenia M. Vecchio & Associates and Eugenia M. Vecchio, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs to the respondents Eugenia M. Vecchio & Associates and Eugenia M. Vecchio.
The Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' separate motions pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint. 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 plaintiffs' causes of action sounding in breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty are based on the same facts underlying their legal malpractice cause of action and do not allege distinct damages. Accordingly, they are duplicative of the legal malpractice cause of action ( see Symbol Tech., Inc. v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP, 69 A.D.3d 191, 199, 888 N.Y.S.2d 538; Town of N. Hempstead v. Winston & Strawn, LLP, 28 A.D.3d 746, 749, 814 N.Y.S.2d 237; Mecca v. Shang, 258 A.D.2d 569, 685 N.Y.S.2d 458), and likewise subject to the three-year limitations period ( see Harris v. Kahn, Hoffman, Nonenmacher & Hochman, LLP, 59 A.D.3d 390, 871 N.Y.S.2d 919; Melendez v. Bernstein, 29 A.D.3d 872, 815 N.Y.S.2d 702).
The limitations period begins to run from the time of the alleged malpractice, not from the time of discovery ( see Shumsky v. Eisenstein, 96 N.Y.2d 164, 166, 726 N.Y.S.2d 365, 750 N.E.2d 67; 730 J & J, LLC v. Polizzotto & Polizzotto, Esqs., 69 A.D.3d 704, 893 N.Y.S.2d 174). Here, the plaintiffs' claims against Eugenia M. Vecchio and her law firm could have accrued no later than December 23, 2004, and their claims against Lee David Auerbach and his law...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Holland v. City of Poughkeepsie
...of action should have been dismissed as duplicative insofar as asserted against the City and Labrada ( see Tsafatinos v. Lee David Auerbach, P.C., 80 A.D.3d 749, 750, 915 N.Y.S.2d 500; Leonard v. Reinhardt, 20 A.D.3d 510, 799 N.Y.S.2d 118). In sum, the Supreme Court properly, in effect, upo......
-
Irvin v. Jones
...from the time of discovery ( see Shumsky v. Eisenstein, 96 N.Y.2d 164, 166, 726 N.Y.S.2d 365 [2001];Tsafatinos v. Lee David Auerbach, P.C., 80 AD3d 749, 915 N.Y.S.2d 500 [2d Dept 2011] ). In the context of a malpractice action against an accountant, the claim “accrues upon the client's rece......
- U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Nicholson
- NYCTL 2009–A Trust v. Tsafatinos