You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Kuske v. Gellert & Cutler, P. C.

Citations: 247 A.D.2d 448; 667 N.Y.S.2d 955

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; February 8, 1998; New York; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

This case involves two related actions for damages due to fraud and violations of Judiciary Law § 487, filed by Ruby Development Corp. against Charrim Development Corp. and others, stemming from a property sale agreement and development project contracts in 1986. The plaintiffs alleged breach of contract and sought to impose liability on the defendants, including the law firm Gellert, Cutler, P.C., and Sheldon Cutler. The defendants appealed a Supreme Court, Nassau County order denying their motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaints. The appellate court reversed this order, granting summary judgment for the defendants and dismissing the complaints. The court found that the claims under Judiciary Law § 487 were time-barred by a three-year statute of limitations. Additionally, the court ruled that the allegations of fraud were insufficient to hold non-representing attorneys liable, as there was no evidence of fraud, collusion, or malicious acts. As a result, all actions were dismissed, providing a favorable outcome for the defendants.

Legal Issues Addressed

Liability for Fraud by Non-Representing Attorneys

Application: The court held that an attorney not representing a party can only be liable if there is evidence of fraud, collusion, or a malicious act, which was not demonstrated in this case.

Reasoning: Regarding the fraud allegations, the court determined that an attorney not representing a party can only be held liable if there is evidence of fraud, collusion, or a malicious act.

Statute of Limitations under Judiciary Law § 487

Application: The court found the plaintiffs' claims under Judiciary Law § 487 to be time-barred by the three-year statute of limitations, resulting in the dismissal of these claims.

Reasoning: The plaintiffs' claims, particularly under Judiciary Law § 487, were ruled time-barred by the three-year statute of limitations.

Summary Judgment in Civil Cases

Application: The appellate court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, dismissing the complaints due to the lack of timely claims and evidence of fraud or malicious acts by the defendants.

Reasoning: The appellate court reversed the order, granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissing the complaints.