Bernadette Gotay v. David Breitbart
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
================================================================= This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York Reports. ----------------------------------------------------------------No. 176 SSM 21 Bernadette Gotay, Respondent, v. David Breitbart, et al., Defendants, Michael Handwerker, et al., Appellants. Submitted by A. Michael Furman, for appellant Michael Handwerker. Submitted by Patrick J. Lawless, for appellants Handwerker Honschke and Marchelos (a partnership), et al. Submitted by Gerald J. Mondora, for respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules, order reversed, with costs, motions for summary judgment by defendants-appellants granted and certified question answered in the negative. Plaintiff's legal malpractice claim was not brought within the applicable statute of limitations period, and defendants-appellants established as a matter of law that the continuous representation doctrine does not apply. Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur. Chief Judge Lippman took no part. Decided June 25, 2009
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
