You are here: / / Statute of Limitations Starts When the Alleged Malpractice Occurred, Not...
, ,

Statute of Limitations Starts When the Alleged Malpractice Occurred, Not When Plaintiff Becomes Aware of It/Continuous Representation Doctrine Can Not Be Invoked to Toll Statute of Limitations When Plaintiff Was Notified Representation Was Formally Closed

In affirming the dismissal of an attorney malpractice cause of action, the First Department noted that the cause of action accrued when an appeal was dismissed for lack of prosecution, irrespective of whether the plaintiff was aware of the dismissal.  In addition, the court noted that a letter to the plaintiff which indicated the defendants’ represented of plaintiff was formally closed precluded the plaintiff from relying on the continuous representation doctrine to toll the statute of limitations:

The first cause of action, alleging legal malpractice, accrued at the time that plaintiff’s appeal of the order that granted summary judgment dismissing his underlying Labor Law claims was dismissed for want of prosecution, in July 2006, notwithstanding his lack of knowledge of the dismissal … . Plaintiff then had three years to commence a malpractice action against defendants (see CPLR 214[6]), absent an applicable ground for tolling the limitations period. He did not commence this action until March 2012.

Plaintiff relies on the continuous representation doctrine. However, in June 2008, defendants sent him a letter enclosing the 2nd Department’s affirmance of the underlying judgment and formally closing their representation of him. The letter, which plaintiff did not object to, demonstrates that the parties lacked “a mutual understanding of the need for further representation on the specific subject underlying the malpractice claim” … . Even accepting that defendants concealed from plaintiff the fact that his appeal was dismissed as abandoned, their letter placed him on notice that his attorney-client relationship with them had ended… . McDonald v Edelman & Edelman, PC, 2014 NY Slip Op 04560, 1st Dept 6-19-14

 

You might also like
OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORDS NOT LIABLE FOR SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL (FIRST DEPT).
PHOTOGRAPH OF SIDEWALK DEFECT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
PETITIONERS’ EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION CLAIMS UNDER THE STATE AND CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW AGAINST THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO TEN DAYS NOTICE OF SORA JUDGE’S INTENT TO, SUA SPONTE, DEPART FROM THE BOARD OF EXAMINER’S RISK ASSESSMENT.
HEARSAY STATEMENTS OF THE ALLEGED VICTIM WERE NOT CORROBORATED, NEGLECT FINDING REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S INNOCENT TEMPORARY POSSESSION OF A WEAPON WAS THE RESULT OF HIS DISARMING A MAN WHO WAS ASSAULTING THE MAN’S WIFE; THE POSSESSION-OF-A-WEAPON CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).
A SEPARATE CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES WILL BE DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
BANK’S POSSESSION OF THE NOTES CONSOLIDATED BY A CONSOLIDATION, EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION AGREEMENT (CEMA) CONFERRED STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION, POSSESSION OF THE ORIGINAL NOTES WAS NOT REQUIRED (FIRST 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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Plaintiffs Granted Summary Judgment In Action Against Golf Course Re: Incursion... Claimant Deemed an Employee Despite Independent Contractor Agreement