From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Spinale v. Greenblatt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 21, 2003
309 A.D.2d 632 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

1928.

October 21, 2003.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Tolub, J.), entered April 15, 2002, which granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint as time-barred, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Norman I. Klein, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Cynthia B. Lovinger, for defendant-respondent.

Before: Andrias, J.P., Ellerin, Friedman, Gonzalez, JJ.


In determining the applicable statutory period, the reality and essence of a cause of action, rather than what its proponent has named it, governs (see Bunker v. Maccaro, 80 A.D.2d 817, 818, citing Brick v. Cohn-Hall-Marx Co., 276 N.Y. 259, 264). Although plaintiffs pleaded causes of action nominally for restitution and unjust enrichment, those causes are based on the same allegations as their causes for legal malpractice. Accordingly, plaintiffs' causes are governed by the three-year limitations period for legal malpractice (CPLR 214) and, as such, are time-barred.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Spinale v. Greenblatt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 21, 2003
309 A.D.2d 632 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Spinale v. Greenblatt

Case Details

Full title:MARY ANN SPINALE, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. TENZER GREENBLATT…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Oct 21, 2003

Citations

309 A.D.2d 632 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
765 N.Y.S.2d 786

Citing Cases

Worldview Entm't Holdings Inc. v. Woodrow

A fraud claim that is not based on an allegation of independent intentionally tortious conduct and that fails…

Venkateswaran v. Wilmers

In 2019, plaintiff commenced the instant action alleging, inter alia, that the misrepresentations made in…