2 No. 112
Karen W. Brothers, &c., et al.,
Appellants,
v.
William J. Florence,
Respondent.
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
2 No. 1131 No. 141
James P. Early et al.,
Peter Rachimi, Appellants,
Appellant,
v.
v.
_________________________________________________________________
2000 NY Int. 106
October 19, 2000
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
v. Frank Rossback, &c., et al.,Robinson Brog Leinwand Greene
Respondents.Genovese & Gluck, P.C., &c., et al.,et al., Defendants.
Respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------- 3 No.
118 Karl Easton, Appellant, v. Joel S. Sankel, et al., Respondents.
----------------------------------- Case No. 112: Submitted by Leslie
S. Hollo, for appellants.
Submitted by Russell A. Smith, for respondent.
Laura Etlinger, for the Attorney General. Case No. 113: Charles E.
Berg, for appellants.
John L. Ciarelli, for respondents.
Laura Etlinger, for the Attorney General. Case No. 118: Submitted by
Doron Zanani, for appellant.
Joshua A. Sabo, for respondents.
Laura Etlinger, for the Attorney General. Case No. 141: Tracie A.
Sundack, for appellant.
Philip T. Simpson, for respondents.
_________________________________________________________________
LEVINE, J.:
SNIPPETS:
Peter Rachimi, Appellants,
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
No. 118 Karl Easton, Appellant, v. Joel S. Sankel, et al., Respondents.
Laura Etlinger, for the Attorney General.
On September 4, 1996, the Governor signed into law a statute amending CPLR 214 to shorten the
the malpractice actions were brought under a contract theory of recovery upon claims which
In all four cases the Appellate Division applied the new, shortened limitations period to the
Brothers et al. v Florence involves a legal malpractice claim that accrued on August 24,
Easton v Sankel et al., is also a legal malpractice action.
the courts below determined that the plaintiff's claim accrued as of April of 1993.
Plaintiff commenced the action on June 15, 1998, more than twenty-one months after the
In Rachimi v Robinson et al., plaintiff commenced a legal malpractice action against
Early v Rossback et al. involves a claim for malpractice in connection with defendants'
The first issue to be addressed is that raised by the appellants in Brothers, that the
Dist.,, 91 NY2d 577, 583), where a statute does not expressly address the issue, "'the reach
That role of the new legislation suggests an intent that it should apply to claims that
As previously noted, in Brothers, Easton and Rachimi, the application of the shortened
If the Legislature expressly sets a reasonable grace period for suit after the effective date
Where, as here, however, there is no legislatively prescribed grace period, a court may
First, on a case-by-case basis the Court may make an individualized determination whether the
ay
The reasoning of the Federal courts in rejecting the ad hoc means of preserving the
Specifically, the shortcomings of a case-by-case approach are that it fails to provide
Time-barring plaintiff in Early for a four-month delay also presents a substantial further
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Ciparick, Wesley and Rosenblatt concur.
|
