From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kuske v. Gellert Cutler, P. C

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 9, 1998
247 A.D.2d 448 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

February 9, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Segal, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the defendants' motion is granted, so much of the order dated August 8, 1995, as denied that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment is vacated, and the complaints are dismissed.

In 1986 the plaintiff Ruby Development Corp. (hereinafter Ruby) agreed to sell certain property to Charrim Development Corp. (hereinafter Charrim). These two parties also entered into several other contracts in connection with their project to develop the property by constructing new homes. Various difficulties in the financing of this project led to the commencement by Ruby of an action for breach of contract against Charrim. Charrim commenced an action against Ruby to compel Ruby to sign certain documents in connection with the sale of the property and the development project ( see, Ruby Dev. Corp. v. Charrim Dev. Corp., 160 A.D.2d 928). Charrim was represented by Gellert Cutler, P.C., and Sheldon Cutler, the appellants herein.

The present actions, the first commenced by Paul Kuske, Ruby's principal officer, and the second commenced by Ruby itself, are based, in part, on an alleged violation by the appellants of the terms of Judiciary Law § 487. As this Court has recently held, such a cause of action is governed by the three-year Statute of Limitations ( see, Jorgensen v. Silverman, 224 A.D.2d 665). Therefore, the plaintiffs' causes of action pursuant to Judiciary Law § 487 are time-barred.

With respect to the merits of the plaintiffs' fraud causes of action, "`an attorney who does not represent a party may only be held liable to that party upon a showing of fraud or collusion or malicious or tortious act'" ( Nicoleau v. Brookhaven Mem. Hosp. Ctr., 181 A.D.2d 815, 816, quoting Pancake v. Franzoni, 149 A.D.2d 575). We find that the defendants demonstrated their right to summary judgment and, accordingly, both actions must be dismissed.

Bracken, J.P., O'Brien, Thompson and Altman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Kuske v. Gellert Cutler, P. C

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 9, 1998
247 A.D.2d 448 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Kuske v. Gellert Cutler, P. C

Case Details

Full title:PAUL KUSKE, Respondent, v. GELLERT CUTLER, P. C., et al., Appellants…

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

Date published: Feb 9, 1998

Citations

247 A.D.2d 448 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
667 N.Y.S.2d 955

Citing Cases

Rafter v. Liddle

Like claims for legal malpractice generally, a claim asserting violation of Judiciary Law § 487 is governed…

Kuske v. Gellert Cutler, P. C

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Segal J.). Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs…