Case Name: Bernadette Gotay, Respondent, v. David Breitbart et al., Defendants, and Michael Handwerker et al., Appellants
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2009-06-25
Citations: 12 N.Y.3d 894
Docket Number: 
Parties: Bernadette Gotay, Respondent, v David Breitbart et al., Defendants, and Michael Handwerker et al., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 12
Pages: 894–895

Head Matter:
[912 NE2d 1056, 884 NYS2d 677]
Bernadette Gotay, Respondent, v David Breitbart et al., Defendants, and Michael Handwerker et al., Appellants.
Decided June 25, 2009
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Furman Kornfeld & Brennan LLP, New York City (A. Michael Furman of counsel), for Michael Handwerker, appellant.
Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP, New York City (Patrick J. Lawless and Richard E. Lerner of counsel), for Handwerker Honschke and Marchelos and others, appellants.
Gerald J. Mondora, Rye Brook, for respondent.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed, with costs, motions for summary judgment by defendants-appellants granted and certified question answered in the negative. Plaintiffs legal malpractice claim was not brought within the applicable statute of limitations period, and defendants-appellants established as a matter of law that the continuous representation doctrine does not apply.
Concur: Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones. Taking no part: Chief Judge Lippman.