You are here: / / Question of Fact About Whether the Three-Year Statute of Limitations for...
, ,

Question of Fact About Whether the Three-Year Statute of Limitations for Professional Malpractice Was Tolled by the “Continuous Representation” Doctrine

The Second Department determined plaintiff had raised a question of fact about whether the “continuous representation” doctrine tolled the statute of limitations.  The complaint alleged that the defendant engineering and architectural firms failed to provide design and construction services which complied with the disability-accessibility design requirements.  The causes of action sounded in professional malpractice and breach of contract. Here the work was completed more than three years prior to the action (three-year statute of limitations applies even to the contract cause of action).  But the firms were later used to remedy the deficiencies uncovered by the Attorney General:

“[A]n action to recover damages for malpractice, other than medical, dental or podiatric malpractice, regardless of whether the underlying theory is based in contract or tort” is subject to a three-year statute of limitations (CPLR 214[6]…). “A cause of action to recover damages for professional malpractice . . . for defective design or construction accrues upon the actual completion of the work to be performed and the consequent termination of the professional relationship”… . However, a professional malpractice cause of action asserted against an architect or engineer may be tolled under the “continuous representation” doctrine if the plaintiff shows its reliance upon a continued course of services related to the original professional services provided … .

The “continuous representation” doctrine, as applied to professionals including architects and engineers, “recognizes that a person seeking professional assistance has a right to repose confidence in the professional’s ability and good faith, and realistically cannot be expected to question and assess the techniques employed of the manner in which the services are rendered” … . The doctrine applies when a plaintiff shows that he or she relied upon a continuous course of services related to the particular professional duty allegedly breached… . * * *

The law recognizes that the supposed completion of the contemplated work does not preclude application of the continuous representation toll if inadequacies or other problems with the contemplated work timely manifest themselves after that date and the parties continue the professional relationship to remedy those problems … . In this regard, a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) will be denied unless the facts establish that a gap between the provision of professional services on the particular matter is so great that the representation cannot be deemed continuous as a matter of law … . Regency Club at Wallkill LLC v Appel Design Group PA, 2013 NY Slip Op 08067, 2nd Dept 12-4-13

 

You might also like
911 CALL AND PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENT PROPERLY ADMITTED AS EXCITED UTTERANCES.
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED UPON THE RIGHT OF SEPULCHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; DEFENDANT HOSPITAL’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS NOT CONCLUSORY OR SPECULATIVE; THE AFFIDAVIT DEMONSTRATED THE EXPERT WAS QUALIFIED TO RENDER AN OPINION ON PROPER WOUND CARE; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CONTENTS OF A CLAIM AGAINST THE STATE IN COURT OF CLAIMS ACT SECTION 11 ARE STRICT AND JURISDICTIONAL, THE CLAIMANT IS NOT REQUIRED TO ALLEGE EVIDENTIARY FACTS (SECOND DEPT).
Where There Are Sharp Factual Disputes, Forensic Evaluations Are Required for a Guardianship Determination
NO NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF 42 USC 1983, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED ON ASSAULT AND BATTERY, PERMISSION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM ON THE REMAINING STATE CHARGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
SUPREME COURT PROPERLY LIMITED THE DEPOSITION QUESTIONING OF A DOCTOR IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AND PROPERLY ORDERED THAT THE DEPOSITION BE SUPERVISED BECAUSE OF MISCONDUCT ON BOTH SIDES DURING A PRIOR DEPOSITION (SECOND DEPT).
JUDGES IN THE 2ND DEPARTMENT HAVE THE DISCRETION TO ORDER UNIFIED PERSONAL INJURY TRIALS WHERE THE ISSUES OF LIABILITY AND THE INJURIES ARE INTERTWINED AS THEY WERE IN THIS CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT CASE; DEFENSE VERDICT SET ASIDE AND A NEW UNIFIED TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Presumption in Favor of Resentencing (re: the New Scheme for Drug Offenses)... Hearsay Insufficient to Support Revocation of Substance Abuse Counselor Cre...