Opinion
Submitted April 14, 1999
June 1, 1999
In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Barone, J.), entered June 23, 1998, as granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the action as time-barred.
Snow, Atticks Hollo, LLC, Madison, Ct. (Leslie S. Hollo of counsel), for appellants.
Florence Smith, Peekskill, N.Y. (Russell A. Smith of counsel), for respondent.
LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, J.P., WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, LEO F. McGINITY, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Supreme Court correctly determined that the instant legal malpractice action commenced April 23, 1998, for claims that accrued in or about August 1992, is time-barred. The plaintiffs' causes of action were not interposed and pending as of September 4, 1996, the effective date of the amendment to CPLR 214(6) (L 1996, ch. 623). "Because this action accrued prior to the effective date of the amendment to CPLR 214(6), but was not commenced until after the amendment's effective date, albeit within the former six-year Statute of Limitations, the issue is whether the action was commenced within a reasonable time of the September 4, 1996, effective date of the amendment to CPLR 214(6)" ( Lefkowitz v. Preminger 261 A.D.2d 447 [2d Dept., May 10, 1999]; see, Shirley v. Danziger, 252 A.D.2d 969; Coastal Broadway Assocs. v. Raphael, 246 A.D.2d 445). The commencement of the instant action almost one year and eight months after the effective date of the amendment was not reasonable ( see, Lefkowitz v. Preminger, supra; Brzozowski v. Zio Italian Bistro, 178 Misc.2d 761; Kelly v. Cesarano, Haque Khan, 178 Misc.2d 176).
Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, the Statute of Limitations was not tolled, as there is no evidence that the principal claimant was incapacitated when the cause of action accrued ( see, CPLR 208).