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
Trial Court’s Questioning Jury Whether It Had Reached a Verdict on Any Counts and Its Acceptance of a Partial Verdict Okay
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE BUILDING MANAGEMENT COMPANY WAS LIABLE, PURSUANT TO ESPINAL FACTORS, FOR INFANT PLAINTIFF’S FALL INTO THE ELEVATOR SHAFT (FIRST DEPT).
STATUTE PROHIBITING CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON AS AN ACT OF TERRORISM NOT PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW AND NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Plaintiff-Passenger’s Injury In an Illegal Drag-Race Not Actionable—Under the Facts, Public Policy Precluded Plaintiff from Bringing Suit
ALTHOUGH FOSTER MOTHER ENTITLED TO FOSTER CARE BENEFITS AT THE EXCEPTIONAL RATE AFTER THE CHILD WAS DIAGNOSED AS AUTISTIC, SHE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE EXCEPTIONAL RATE RETROACTIVELY FOR THE PERIOD OF FOSTER CARE BEFORE THE DIAGNOSIS (FIRST DEPT).
BECAUSE THE PEOPLE PROVIDED NO INFORMATION ABOUT THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF DEFENDANT’S ARREST, DEFENDANT’S ALLEGATIONS IN THE OMNIBUS MOTION WERE SUFFICIENT TO REQUIRE A PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING 1ST DEPT.
Elements of Causes of Action for (1) Misappropriation of (a) Trade Secrets, (b) Business Ideas, and (c) Labor, Skills and Expenditures, (2) Breach of Fiduciary Duty (Delaware Law), (3) Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty (Delaware Law), (4) Unjust Enrichment, and (5) Promissory Estoppel Described in Some Detail
DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYER (TOMS) WAS NOT LIABLE FOR THE ACTS OF DEFENDANT EMPLOYEE (ROSNER) WHICH WERE NOT DONE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF ROSNER’S EMPLOYMENT OR TO FURTHER TOMS’ BUSINESS (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Plaintiffs Granted Summary Judgment In Action Against Golf Course Re: Incursion... All Ambiguities Re: Letters of Credit Resolved Against the Issuer—“Independence...