Glavey v Latzman

Glavey v Latzman 2003 NY Slip Op 51448(U) Decided on November 18, 2003 Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. Appellate Term, First Department

[*1] This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the Official Reports.
Digest-Index Classification:Limitation of Actions—Continuous Relationship Doctrine
Decided on November 18, 2003
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT:
HON. LUCINDO SUAREZ, P.J.
HON. WILLIAM P. McCOOE
HON. PHYLLIS GANGEL-JACOB, Justices.
570379/03

AINE GLAVEY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

against

STEPHEN LATZMAN & RANDY REISCH,

[*2] Defendants-Respondents.

Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court, New York County, entered July 2, 2002 (Saliann Scarpulla, J.) which granted defendants' respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

PER CURIAM:

Order entered July 2, 2002 (Saliann Scarpulla, J.) affirmed, with $10 costs.

This November 2001 breach of contract action, seeking damages for the defendant-attorneys' alleged "overcharge on legal fees," was properly dismissed as time-barred under the governing six-year Statute of Limitations (see, CPLR 213[2]). The motion court properly determined that the action accrued in September 1995, when defendants collected the final portion of the challenged fee and the contractual breach, if any, occurred (see, Garden City Imaging Ctr. v Lawrence and Walsh, P.C., 234 AD2d 414; Woyciesjes v. Schering-Plough Corp., 151 AD2d 1014, appeal dismissed 74 NY2d 894). That defendants' representation of plaintiff in the underlying matter may have continued past that date does not serve to toll the contractual limitations period (see, Woyciesjes, 151 AD2d at 1014-1015).
[*3]This constitutes the decision and order of the court.