AINBINDER v. CHERNIS

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that in reality the plaintiff's complaint asserted a claim of legal malpractice, not fraud ( see, Garber v. Ravitch, 186 A.D.2d 361), and, thus, was barred by the Statute of Limitations ( see, CPLR 214; see also, Panigeon v. Aliance Nav. Line, 1997 WL 473385 [US Dist. Ct., SD NY, Aug. 19, 1997]; Russo v. Waller, 171 Misc.2d 707).

Rosenblatt, J. P., Sullivan, Joy, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.