[*1]
Miligrim, Thomajan & Lee v Golden Gate Petroleum, P.C.
2008 NY Slip Op 51309(U) [20 Misc 3d 128(A)]
Decided on June 30, 2008
Appellate Term, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.


Decided on June 30, 2008
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT

PRESENT: McKEON, P.J., DAVIS, HEITLER, JJ
570208/08.

Miligrim, Thomajan & Lee n/k/a Varet & Fink, P.C., Plaintiff-Respondent,

against

Golden Gate Petroleum, P.C. And Dennis O'Keefe, Defendant-Appellant.


Defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered January 2, 2008, which granted plaintiff's motion to dismiss defendant's counterclaim for legal malpractice as time-barred.


Per Curiam.

Order (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered January 2, 2008, reversed, with $10 costs, motion denied and defendant's counterclaim reinstated.

Defendant's counterclaim alleging legal malpractice is not time-barred. Pursuant to CPLR 203(d), a counterclaim is deemed interposed for Statute of Limitations purposes as of the time the summons is filed (see Proskauer Rose Goetz & Mendelsohn v. Munao, 270 AD2d 150 [2000]; McLaughlin, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C203:9) Plaintiff's summons was filed in June 1990. Inasmuch as defendant's legal malpractice counterclaim was governed by the then applicable six-year Statute of Limitations and accrued no earlier than 1986, it was "not barred at the time the claims asserted in the complaint were interposed" in 1990 (CPLR 203[d]).
This Constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.
I concur


Decision Date: June 30, 2008