You are here: / / Question of Fact Re: Whether the “Continuous Representation Doctrine”...
, ,

Question of Fact Re: Whether the “Continuous Representation Doctrine” Tolled the Three-Year Statute of Limitations in a Legal Malpractice Action

The Second Department determined plaintiff had raised a question of fact re: whether the three-year statute of limitations in a legal malpractice action was tolled by the continuous representation doctrine. The court explained the doctrine as follows:

The three-year limitations period applicable to causes of action to recover damages for legal malpractice “may be tolled by the continuous representation doctrine where there is a mutual understanding of the need for further representation on the specific subject matter underlying the malpractice claim” … . “For the doctrine to apply, there must be clear indicia of an ongoing, continuous, developing, and dependent relationship between the client and the attorney” … . ” One of the predicates for the application of the doctrine is continuing trust and confidence in the relationship between the parties'” … . Beroza v Sallah Law Firm, P.C., 2015 NY Slip Op 01913, 2nd Dept 3-11-15

 

You might also like
EXPOSED TREE ROOT IN TOWN PARK WAS AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION, SLIP AND FALL ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT STATE IT WAS BASED ON FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE AND THE UNCERTIFIED POLICE REPORT WAS INADMISSIBLE; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS PROPERTY-DAMAGE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS ABANDONED OR FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE GRAVES AMENDMENT, WHICH RELIEVES THE OWNER OF A LEASED VEHICLE FROM LIABILITY FOR A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT, DID NOT APPLY TO THE DEFENDANT OWNER; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
COUNTY NOT IMMUNE FROM SUIT ALLEGING NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE OF DRAINAGE SYSTEM; INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR MAY BE LIABLE FOR LAUNCHING AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM; FLOOD DAMAGE RESULTED FROM DREDGING OPERATION.
DEFENDANT SOLE SHAREHOLDER OF DEFENDANT CORPORATION WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ACTION AGAINST HIM PREMISED UPON PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL, THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE WARRANTY PROVISIONS OF THE CONTRACT WERE VIOLATED AND WHETHER DEFENDANT CORPORATION WAS STRIPPED OF ASSETS SUCH THAT IT COULD NOT MEET ITS CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS (SECOND DEPT).
RIDING A BICYCLE ON A PUBLIC PATH USED BY BOTH BICYCLISTS AND PEDESTRIANS IS NOT A RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY WHICH TRIGGERS THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).
THE REFEREE’S REPORT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY BECAUSE THE BUSINESS RECORDS UPON WHICH THE REPORT WAS BASED WERE NOT PRODUCED (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

Plaintiff Brought a Frivolous Lawsuit Solely to Harass/Costs Properly Imposed... Question of Fact Whether Plaintiff’s Negligence Was Sole Proximate Cause...