In Pace v Horowitz, 190 AD3d 619 [1st Dept 2021], the court held that the continuous representation doctrine toll only applies to the particular matter, not general representation. The court held: The court correctly determined that plaintiffs failed to show that Read More »
Statute of limitations: Court dismissed client’s legal malpractice action.
In Flintlock Constr. Services, LLC v Rubin, Fiorella & Friedman, LLP, 188 AD3d 530 [1st Dept 2020], the court dismissed the client’s legal malpractice action based on the statute of limitations, holding: Plaintiff commenced this action on September 17, 2018, alleging Read More »
A motion to dismiss based upon documentary evidence should be conclusive.
The decision in Bianco v Law Offices of Yuri Prakhin, 189 AD3d 1326, 1327-29 [2d Dept 2020] serves as a good reminder that a motion to dismiss an action based upon documentary evidence should be conclusive; otherwise, the motion will Read More »
Party bringing a lawsuit must be prepared to produce discovery responses in a timely fashion.
Allstar Elecs., Inc. v DeLuca, 188 AD3d 1121 [2d Dept 2020] is a good reminder that, even in the context of a legal malpractice case, the party bringing the lawsuit must be prepared to produce all discovery responses to the Read More »
A client must be cognizant of the strict bar under the statute of limitations for suing his attorney.
A client must be cognizant of the strict bar under the statute of limitations for suing his attorney. In Flintlock Constr. Services, LLC v Rubin, Fiorella & Friedman, LLP, 188 AD3d 530, 531 [1st Dept 2020], the court affirmed dismissal based Read More »
