You are here: / / BECAUSE PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT COULD NOT COMMENCE A LEGAL MALPRACTICE...
, ,

BECAUSE PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT COULD NOT COMMENCE A LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WHILE THE DEFENDANTS-ATTORNEYS STILL REPRESENTED HIM, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ACTION WAS TIMELY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, in a decision addressing several issues not summarized here, determined there was a question of fact whether the continuous representation doctrine rendered the legal malpractice action timely:

… [T]he plaintiffs raised a question of fact as to whether the continuous representation doctrine tolled the running of the statute of limitations until June 24, 2013, when the Supreme Court … vacated the March 18, 2013 order, and … granted W & H’s [defendants-attorneys] motion for leave to withdraw as counsel. Inasmuch as W & H’s motion to withdraw as counsel, which was opposed by Michele [plaintiff’s decedent] , was initially denied, Michele could not be expected to commence an action to recover damages for legal malpractice against W & H while the representation continued … . Accordingly, the court erred in granting that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) to dismiss the legal malpractice cause of action as time-barred. Tulino v Hiller, P.C., 2022 NY Slip Op 01197, Second Dept 2-23-22

 

You might also like
UNDULY HARSH AND SEVERE SENTENCE FOR SALE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE REDUCED.
Questions of Fact Raised Re: Whether Property Owner Liable for Work Done by Independent Contractor
THE TRIAL JUDGE TOOK ON THE APPEARANCE OF AN ADVOCATE FOR THE PROSECUTION IN QUESTIONING WITNESSES; ROBBERY CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
Revocation of Driver’s License for Refusal of the Chemical Test Reversed—No “Reasonable Suspicion” to Justify Vehicle Stop
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF DRIVER HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY, HE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS INTERSECTION ACCIDENT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED TO PLAINTIFF’S PASSENGER, HOWEVER.
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S REPEATED FAILURE TO APPEAR FOR THE CONTINUATION OF HER DEPOSITION WAS WILLFUL, STRIKING THE COMPLAINT WAS TOO SEVERE A SANCTION (SECOND DEPT).
SECOND RISK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, IN A DIFFERENT COUNTY, BASED UPON THE SAME RISK ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN HELD.
PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY SERVED OR EVEN NOTIFIED OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE COURT NEVER HAD JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANT AND THE MOTION TO EXTEND THE TIME TO SERVE HER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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

IN THIS TENANT HARASSMENT AND PRIVATE NUISANCE ACTION BY TENANTS AGAINST THE... THE BANK’S PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304...