Opinion
Submitted February 2, 2001.
March 5, 2001.
In an action to recover damages for architectural malpractice, the defendant Kirshenbaum Tambasco, P.C., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (I. Aronin, J.), dated June 14, 2000, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims insofar as asserted against it.
Gogick, Byrne O'Neill, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Glen P. Kennedy of counsel), for appellant.
Frederick Mehl, New York, N.Y., for plaintiff-respondent.
Before: WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, J.P., ANITA R. FLORIO, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly denied the appellant's motion, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. Although the appellant contends that the plaintiff's claim for architectural malpractice is barred by the three-year Statute of Limitations (see, CPLR 214), the record is insufficient to determine when the appellant's professional relationship with the plaintiff ended (see, Methodist Hosp. v. Perkins Will Partnership, 203 A.D.2d 435).
The appellant's remaining contention is without merit.