From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Government Development Bank v. Ernst Young

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Sep 7, 1995
219 A.D.2d 467 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

September 7, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Jane Goodman, J.).


The IAS Court properly denied defendants' motion to dismiss on Statute of Limitations grounds, as defendants did not show that, on the facts as alleged or as conceded by plaintiff, the action was time-barred. However, the timeliness of the action clearly depends on factual issues relating to the time at which the cause of action accrued. Because defendants had neither notice that the court would treat the motion as one for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3211 (c) nor an opportunity to explore the outstanding factual issues by way of discovery, the denial should have been without prejudice to further consideration of such factual issues, upon a motion by defendants for summary judgment, or, if necessary, at trial. Whether there should be expedited and limited discovery on the timeliness issue is a question that should be left to the IAS Court.

Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Wallach, Nardelli, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.


Summaries of

Government Development Bank v. Ernst Young

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Sep 7, 1995
219 A.D.2d 467 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Government Development Bank v. Ernst Young

Case Details

Full title:GOVERNMENT DEVELOPMENT BANK FOR PUERTO RICO, Respondent, v. ERNST YOUNG et…

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

Date published: Sep 7, 1995

Citations

219 A.D.2d 467 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
631 N.Y.S.2d 147

Citing Cases

Marinelli v. Sroka

Defendant argues that action was commenced beyond the statute of limitations for legal malpractice actions,…

Kanter v. Pieri

A cause of action for legal malpractice accrues when the malpractice is committed ( see Glamm v. Allen, 57…