Extended Search
Generic filters
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in excerpt
Search in comments
Filter by Custom Post Type
Extended Search
Generic filters
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in excerpt
Search in comments
Filter by Custom Post Type

Mohan v. Hollander – Case Brief Summary (New York)

In Mohan v. Hollander, 303 A.D.2d 473, 756 N.Y.S.2d 615 (2d Dept. 2003), the Second Department held that, where the facts set forth in the complaint alleged causes of action to recover damages for conversion and legal malpractice which were barred by the applicable three-year statute of limitations, and the fraud claims were "merely incidental to the conversion and legal malpractice claims" and "the only purpose they serve is to circumvent the three-year statute of limitations," the trial court properly granted defendants' motions to dismiss the amended complaint. (Id. at 474.)