Opinion
March 20, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiffs' claims for rescission of a partnership agreement and legal malpractice were interposed on August 3, 1989, when a copy of the summons and complaint was mailed to the defendant after they had been delivered to a person of suitable age and discretion at the defendant's place of business (see, CPLR 308; Rudin v. Disanza, 202 A.D.2d 202; Spratt v. Spratt, 154 Misc.2d 360; see also, Greenberg v. Rosenberg, 174 A.D.2d 601). Those claims, having arisen in July of 1983, were properly dismissed as untimely (see, CPLR 213, [2]; 214 [6]). Moreover, contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, there is no evidence in the record that the defendant continuously represented the plaintiffs. Thus, the Statute of Limitations was not tolled (see generally, Glamm v. Allen, 57 N.Y.2d 87, 93-94; Pittelli v. Schulman, 128 A.D.2d 600).
We have considered the plaintiffs' remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Lawrence, Hart and Goldstein, JJ., concur.