You are here: / / QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE RENDERED LEGAL...
, , ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE RENDERED LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION TIMELY.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether the continuous representation doctrine rendered the legal malpractice cause of action timely. The malpractice allegation stemmed from the alleged failure of the attorneys to recognize that the sale of plaintiff’s business required the creation of a pension fund ($500,000). There was evidence a meeting was held to discuss the pension fund problem at a time which would rendered the malpractice action timely:

​

A claim to recover damages for legal malpractice accrues when the malpractice is committed … . “However, pursuant to the doctrine of continuous representation, the time within which to sue on the claim is tolled until the attorney’s continuing representation of the client with regard to the particular matter terminates” … . For the continuous representation doctrine to apply, “there must be clear indicia of an ongoing, continuous, developing, and dependant relationship between the client and the attorney which often includes an attempt by the attorney to rectify an alleged act of malpractice” … .

Here, the defendant satisfied its initial burden by demonstrating, prima facie, that the alleged legal malpractice occurred more than three years before this action was commenced in March 2015 … . In opposition, however, the plaintiffs raised a question of fact as to whether the applicable statute of limitations was tolled by the continuous representation doctrine. The plaintiffs submitted Andrew Stein’s affidavit, in which he averred that he met with members of the defendant on July 26, 2012, to determine how to rectify the pension liability issue. Andrew indicated that he was not satisfied with their recommendations concerning how to rectify the issue and directed them to formulate another idea. Andrew’s affidavit was sufficient to raise a question of fact as to whether the defendant engaged in a course of continuous representation intended to rectify or mitigate the initial act of alleged malpractice … . Stein Indus., Inc. v Certilman Balin Adler & Hyman, LLP. 2017 NY Slip Op 02688, 2nd Dept 4-5-17

 

ATTORNEYS (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE RENDERED LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION TIMELY)/ATTORNEYS (LEGAL MALPRACTICE, (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE RENDERED LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION TIMELY)/LEGAL MALPRACTICE (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE RENDERED LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION TIMELY)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (LEGAL MALPRACTICE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE RENDERED LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION TIMELY)/CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE (LEGAL MALPRACTICE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE RENDERED LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION TIMELY)

You might also like
“Common Law Arbitration” Explained/”Common Law Arbitration” Waived by Seeking Relief in a Counterclaim
DEFENDANT’S FEIGNED ISSUE OF FACT DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT IN THE PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT).
PARTY SUBJECT TO THIS ORDER OF PROTECTION PROCEEDING DID NOT KNOWINGLY AND INTELLIGENTLY WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL.
PEOPLE’S APPLICATION FOR AN UPWARD DEPARTURE NOT SUPPORTED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE; EVIDENCE DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED BUT NEVER INDICTED OR CONVICTED DOES NOT MEET THE CLEAR AND CONVINCING STANDARD (SECOND DEPT).
AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE AFFIANT HAD THE AUTHORITY TO ACT ON BEHALF OF THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
In Order for a Municipality to Be Liable for the Creation of a Dangerous Condition, the Dangerous Condition Must Result Immediately from the Negligent Act—Here the Allegation the Dangerous Condition Developed Over a Period of Years Was Not Sufficient
PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS TAKEN TO THE DEFENDANT HOSPITAL’S EMERGENCY ROOM AND WAS OPERATED ON BY AN INDEPENDENT SURGEON; PLAINTIFF DEMONSTRATED THE EMERGENCY ROOM EXCEPTION APPLIED AND THE HOSPITAL WAS VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE SURGEON’S ALLEGED MALPRACTICE (SECOND DEPT).
DETERIORATING MENTAL CONDITION AND DEPLORABLE LIVING CONDITIONS JUSTIFIED REVOCATION OF PISTOL PERMIT.

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 © 2024 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

KILLING OF PLAINTIFF IN HER OFFICE WAS NOT FORESEEABLE BY THE BUILDING OWNERS... LAWSUIT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BASED ON THE DIAGNOSIS PLAINTIFF WAS...