PLAINTIFFS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE RENDERED THE LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION TIMELY; REFERENCE TO THE “ENFORCEMENT” OF THE LOAN DOCUMENTS INDICATED THE POSSIBILITY OF REPRESENTATION AFTER THE DATE OF THE LOAN TRANSACTION (FOURTH DEPT).
The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs raised a question of fact whether the continuous representation doctrine rendered the legal malpractice action timely: The continuous representation doctrine tolls the limitations period “where there is a mutual understanding of the need for further representation on the specific subject matter underlying the malpractice claim” … , […]
