Opinion
July 27, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O'Brien, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint, which is premised on the defendant's allegedly negligent representation of them in connection with the purchase of a restaurant business. The complaint is time barred as a result of the plaintiffs' failure to institute this action within six years from the date that the defendant's representation of them in connection with the subject transaction was concluded (see, Luk Lamellen U. Kupplungbau GmbH v. Lerner, 166 A.D.2d 505). The continuous representation doctrine (see, Siegel v. Kranis, 29 A.D.2d 477), does not apply under the circumstances of this case (cf., Boorman v. Bleakley, Platt, Schmidt, Hart Fritz, 88 A.D.2d 942).
We have considered the plaintiffs' remaining contentions and find that none warrant a reversal of the order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant. However, we decline to impose sanctions or to order the payment of costs as requested by the defendant pursuant to 22 N.Y.CRR part 130. Thompson, J.P., Lawrence, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.