Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000

Savarese v. Shatz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided June 5, 2000

273 A.D.2d 219; 708 N.Y.S.2d 642; 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6281

Cases that cite this one

41 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Rotonde v. Stewart Title Ins. Co. (New York Supreme Court, Westchester County 2025)
Rotonde v. Stewart Titles. Ins. Co. (New York Supreme Court, Westchester County 2025)
Rotonde v. Stewart Title Ins. Co. (New York Supreme Court, Westchester County 2025)
Collins-Genova v. Louros (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
Arnell Constr. Corp. v. New York City Sch. Constr. Auth. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
Babu v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Tsafatinos v. Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker, LLP (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Rehberger v. Garguilo & Orzechowski, LLP (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Alicanti v. Bianco (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
C.L. v. County of Oneida (New York Supreme Court, Oneida County 2024)
Bachir v. Lloyds of London (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
Geotech Enterprises, Inc. v. 181 Edgewater, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
LARKIN, LILY v. ROCHESTER HOUSING AUTHORITY (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
Larkin v. Rochester Housing Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
Krichmar v. Scher (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
Rakusin v. Miano (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
Fleetwood Agency, Inc. v. Verde Electric Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
Philip F. v. Roman Catholic Diocese (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Minskoff Grant Realty & Management Corp. v. 211 Manager Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Morris v. Gianelli (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Coombs v. Jervier (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Kennedy v. Fischer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Chung v. Wang (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Romanelli v. Disilvio (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Mule v. Peloro (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the defendants Phillip Shatz and McCabe & Mack appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (LaCava, J.), dated August 25, 1999, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) to dismiss the complaint as untimely insofar as asserted against them.

*220Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellants, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

To dismiss a cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) on the ground that it is barred by the Statute of Limitations, a defendant bears the initial burden of establishing prima facie that the time in which to sue has expired (see, Siegel v Wank, 183 AD2d 158; Hoosac Val. Farmers Exch. v AG Assets, 168 AD2d 822, 823). Here, the appellants met their burden by demonstrating that the plaintiffs’ claim accrued more than three years before the commencement of the instant action (see, CPLR 214 [6]). Thereafter, the burden shifted to the plaintiffs to “ ‘ “aver evidentiary facts” ’ establishing that the case falls within an exception to the Statute of Limitations” (Assad v City of New York, 238 AD2d 456, 457, quoting Siegel v Wank, supra; Hoosac Val. Farmers Exch. v AG Assets, supra). The Supreme Court erred in denying the appellants’ motion, as the plaintiffs failed to establish the applicability of any exception to the Statute of Limitations (see, e.g., Ainbinder v Jacobi, 268 AD2d 494). Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.