You are here: / / QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE TOLLED...
, , ,

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS ARCHITECTURAL MALPRACTICE/BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact about whether the continuous representation doctrine tolled the statute of limitations in this architectural malpractice/breach of contract action. Defendant’s decedent was hired by plaintiff to construct a four-story condominium. Although the work was completed in 2008 there were problems getting approval by the city and new architectural services contracts were entered in 2015 and 2018. The court noted that, where a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 is made on statute-of-limitations grounds, a plaintiff may remedy any defects in the pleadings in an affidavit:

“[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] … ). Such an action, founded upon “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” … . * * *

Even if the defendant had met her prima facie burden, the plaintiff raised a question of fact as to whether the continuous representation toll applied. Specifically, the plaintiff averred in an affidavit in opposition to the motion that [defendant’s decedent] continued to work on the project from 2008 through the time that the parties entered into the 2015 agreement, including by continuing to revise the plans so as to subdivide the property, regularly meeting with the plaintiff, renewing building permits with the plaintiff, meeting with a “commissioner” at the DOB [NYC Department of Buildings] to discuss revised plans, and filing an application concerning the project with the DOB in 2014. Anderson v Pinn, 2020 NY Slip Op 03636, Second Dept 7-1-20

 

You might also like
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT REQUIRED TO DEMONSTRATE IT WAS A LICENSED DEBT COLLECTION AGENCY PURSUANT TO THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE; THE BANK DID NOT ATTACH THE BUSINESS RECORDS NECESSARY TO DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT (SECOND DEPT).
THERE WAS A DE FACTO MERGER SUCH THAT THE SUCCESSOR CORPORATION WAS LIABLE FOR THE TORTS OF ITS PREDECESSOR; THE CORPORATE VEIL WAS PROPERLY PIERCED TO FIND THE OWNER OF THE CORPORATION LIABLE (SECOND DEPT).
CLAIMANT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) and 241(6) ACTION AGAINST THE STATE SERVED THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WITH THE NOTICE OF INTENTION TO FILE A CLAIM BUT NOT THE NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY AUTHORITY (NYSTA); ALTHOUGH THE EXCUSE (IGNORANCE OF THE LAW) WAS NOT VALID, THE ACTION HAD MERIT AND THE NYSTA HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS; THEREFORE CLAIMANT’S MOTION TO SERVE AND FILE A LATE CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
QUESTIONS OF FACT RAISED ABOUT CAUSE OF FALL AND CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF CONDITION.
APPEAL HELD AND MATTER REMITTED TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO MOVE TO VACATE HIS GUILTY PLEA ON THE GROUND HE WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES (SECOND DEPT).
Causes of Action Seeking Monetary Damages Were Not Incidental to the Article 78 Causes of Action and, Therefore, Were Not Subject to the Four-Month Statute of Limitations
Police Did Not Have Sufficient Information to Justify Request that 12-Year-Old Lift His Shirt–Weapon Recovered After Juvenile’s Refusal (and a Police Pursuit) Should Have Been Suppressed
MORTGAGE WAS NOT ACCELERATED UNTIL THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS COMMENCED IN OCTOBER 2016; ACTION FOR THE INSTALLMENT PAYMENTS MISSED DURING THE SIX YEARS PRIOR TO OCTOBER 2016 IS TIMELY (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

MOTHER CANNOT RECOVER DAMAGES FOR EMOTIONAL DISTRESS FOR INJURY IN UTERO WHERE,... THE PROMISSORY NOTE WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED TO BE AN INSTRUMENT FOR THE PAYMENT...