AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

MITCHELL RACHLIN, appellant, v. LaROSSA, MITCHELL ROSS, ET AL., respondents.

DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The defendants demonstrated prima facie that so much of the plaintiff's complaint as alleged legal malpractice based on their representation of him in a civil action was barred by the three-year statute of limitations ( see CPLR 214; Alicanti v. Bianco, 2 A.D.3d 373). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable question of fact as to whether the statute of limitations was tolled by the doctrine of continuous representation ( see Clark v. Jacobson, 202 A.D.2d 466).

In light of our determination, it is unnecessary to address the plaintiff's remaining contentions.

ALTMAN, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, ADAMS and SKELOS, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

RACHLIN v. LaROSSA
(Jun 14, 2004)