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
FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO DETERMINE IT WAS IN THE CHILD’S BEST INTERESTS TO BE WITH FATHER IN THIS TEMPORARY CUSTODY PROCEEDING, ALLEGATIONS OF EXCESSIVE CORPORAL PUNISHMENT REQUIRED A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Demonstrating Documents Were Material Prepared in Anticipation of Litigation
PROOF DID NOT SUPPORT TERMINATION OF FATHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO A SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; DEFENDANT WAS ESTOPPED FROM CLAIMING HE RESIDED AT AN ADDRESS DIFFERENT FROM THE ADDRESS ON FILE WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES (SECOND DEPT).
Defendants Who Struck Plaintiff’s Vehicle When Plaintiff Pulled Out of a Parking Lot Entitled to Summary Judgment
WHEN A PARTY BRINGS A MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE IN THE COUNTY TO WHICH THE PARTY WANTS VENUE CHANGED, AS OPPOSED TO THE COUNTY WHERE THE ACTION WAS STARTED, THE PARTY MUST USE THE SPECIAL PROCEDURE IN CPLR 511 (A) AND (B), WHICH REQUIRES MAKING A DEMAND ON THE OTHER PARTY BEFORE BRINGING A MOTION; HERE THE SPECIAL PROCEDURE WAS NOT USED, THE MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE WAS MADE IN THE “WRONG COUNTY” AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
Father Estopped from Denying Paternity—Best Interests of Child Prevail
NEITHER THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER NOR THE CITY WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE (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...