From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Akinrosotu v. Kellman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 18, 2001
289 A.D.2d 112 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

5378

December 18, 2001.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis York, J.), entered on or about October 30, 2000, which granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of the Statute of Limitations, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of denying that part of defendant's motion seeking dismissal of plaintiff's first and fourth causes of action for money had and received and for breach of contract, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Pro se, for plaintiff-appellant.

Seth Eisenberger, for defendant-respondent.

Before: Andrias, J.P., Wallach, Lerner, Rubin, Buckley, JJ.


We agree with the IAS court that plaintiff's causes of action accrued when defendant wrote the letter dated July 20, 1994, indicating that she refused to return plaintiff's initial payment of $5,000 towards her $50,000 retainer fee. However, we disagree with the court's implicit conclusion that plaintiff is limited to a cause of action for legal malpractice and its concomitant three-year Statute of Limitations. Plaintiff's first and fourth causes of action specifically allege causes of action for money had and received and for breach of contract, both of which are governed by a six-year Statute of Limitations.

Accordingly, plaintiff's action commenced on October 4, 1999 is timely as to those causes of action.

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


Summaries of

Akinrosotu v. Kellman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 18, 2001
289 A.D.2d 112 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Akinrosotu v. Kellman

Case Details

Full title:TOLU O. AKINROSOTU, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. SUSAN G. KELLMAN, ESQ.…

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

Date published: Dec 18, 2001

Citations

289 A.D.2d 112 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
735 N.Y.S.2d 30

Citing Cases

Sompo Japan Ins. of Am. v. Travelers Indem. Co.

Thus, the claim for breach of fiduciary duty is subject to, and barred by, the same statute of limitations as…

Menkes v. Greenwald

. Thus, since "all of plaintiffs claims are based on the same alleged conduct amounting to legal…