If there has been a demonstration that the attorney-client relationship in a matter ceased…

Posted on April 26, 2019 by Richard Klass

While the continuous representation doctrine can toll a time-barred cause of action for legal malpractice, if there has been a demonstration that the attorney-client relationship in a matter ceased, the time within which to bring such action will accrue then, as held in Sclafani v Kahn, 169 AD3d 846 [2d Dept 2019]: An action to recover damages for legal malpractice must be commenced within three years of accrual, “ regardless of whether the underlying theory is based in contract or tort ” (CPLR 214[6]; see McCoy v. Feinman, 99 N.Y.2d 295, 301, 755 N.Y.S.2d 693, 785 N.E.2d 714; Chase Scientific Research v. NIA Group, 96 N.Y.2d 20, 725 N.Y.S.2d 592, 749 N.E.2d 161; Quinn v. McCabe, Collins, McGeough & Fowler, LLP, 138 A.D.3d at 1086, 30 N.Y.S.3d 288; Alizio v. Ruskin Moscou Faltischek, P.C., 126 A.D.3d at 735, 5 N.Y.S.3d 252; Farage v. Ehrenberg, 124 A.D.3d 159, 163, 996 N.Y.S.2d 646; Landow v. Snow Becker Krauss, P.C., 111 A.D.3d at 796, 975 N.Y.S.2d 119). “ A cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice accrues when the malpractice is committed, not when it is discovered ” (Alizio v. Ruskin Moscou Faltischek, P.C., 126 A.D.3d at 735, 5 N.Y.S.3d 252; see McCoy v. Feinman, 99 N.Y.2d at 301, 755 N.Y.S.2d 693, 785 N.E.2d 714; Quinn v. McCabe, Collins, McGeough & Fowler, LLP, 138 A.D.3d at 1086, 30 N.Y.S.3d 288; Farage v. Ehrenberg, 124 A.D.3d at 164, 996 N.Y.S.2d 646; Landow v. Snow Becker Krauss, P.C., 111 A.D.3d at 796, 975 N.Y.S.2d 119). However, “ [t]he continuous representation doctrine serves to toll the statute of limitations and render timely an otherwise time-barred cause of action for legal malpractice, but ‘ only where there is a mutual understanding of the need for further representation on the specific subject *121 matter underlying the malpractice claim ’ ” (King Tower Realty Corp. v. G & G Funding Corp., 163 A.D.3d 541, 543, 79 N.Y.S.3d 289, quoting McCoy v. Feinman, 99 N.Y.2d at 306, 755 N.Y.S.2d 693, 785 N.E.2d 714; see Alizio v. Ruskin Moscou Faltischek, P.C., 126 A.D.3d at 735, 5 N.Y.S.3d 252). For the doctrine to apply, “ there must be clear indicia of ‘ an ongoing, continuous, developing, and dependent relationship between the client and the attorney ’ ” (Farage v. Ehrenberg, 124 A.D.3d at 164, 996 N.Y.S.2d 646, quoting Aseel v. Jonathan E. Kroll & Assoc., PLLC, 106 A.D.3d 1037, 1038, 966 N.Y.S.2d 202; see Quinn v. McCabe, Collins, McGeough & Fowler, LLP, 138 A.D.3d at 1086, 30 N.Y.S.3d 288). Here, the defendants established that the plaintiffs’ legal malpractice cause of action was time-barred, as it accrued on June 24, 2009, at the conclusion of the closing (see Rudolf v. Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 N.Y.3d 438, 442, 835 N.Y.S.2d 534, 867 N.E.2d 385). In opposition to the defendants’ respective motions, the plaintiffs failed to raise a question of fact as to whether the continuous representation doctrine tolled the applicable statute of limitations. Indeed, the communications between the parties upon which the plaintiffs rely, which occurred after the statute of limitations had run, demonstrated that the attorney-client relationship in this matter had ceased at the conclusion of the closing, and was not continued.

R. A. Klass Your Court Street Lawyer

Next post Previous post

Be mindful of New York’s statute of limitations pertaining to legal malpractice actions

Posted on March 18, 2019 by Richard Klass

Soloway v Kane Kessler, PC, 168 AD3d 407 [1st Dept 2019] serves as a good reminder to be mindful of New York’s statute of limitations pertaining to legal malpractice actions.

“ The court correctly found the complaint time-barred under CPLR 202, New York’s “ borrowing statute, ” which requires a claim to be timely under both the New York limitations period and that of the jurisdiction where the claim is alleged to have arisen (Kat House Prods., LLC v Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, LLP, 71 AD3d 580 [1st Dept 2010]).

Plaintiff, a New Jersey resident, alleged legal malpractice in connection with defendants’ representation of him for numerous real estate transactions, a cause of action which has a three year statute of limitations in New York (CPLR 214 [6]), and a six year limitations period in New Jersey (NJ Stat Ann § 2A:14-1). The latest that the alleged malpractice could have occurred was February 7, 2013, the date set for closing on the last of the real estate matters. Because plaintiff commenced the action on October 28, 2016, more than three years later, it was correctly dismissed as untimely. ”

R. A. Klass
Your Court Street Lawyer

Next post
Previous post

…client’s allegations were previously addressed in a prior matter.

Posted on January 14, 2019 by Richard Klass

In Knox v Aronson, Mayefsky & Sloan, LLP, 2018 NY Slip Op 09030 [1st Dept Dec. 27, 2018], the court dismissed a legal malpractice case where the client’s allegations were previously addressed in a prior matter. The court held:

Supreme Court properly dismissed plaintiff’s complaint as against FBK, since the only claim asserted, a legal malpractice claim, is barred by the doctrine of res judicata (see Matter of Hunter, 4 N.Y.3d 260, 269, 794 N.Y.S.2d 286, 827 N.E.2d 269 [2005] ). Plaintiff’s legal malpractice claim is based on the same conduct that was the basis of the counterclaim previously dismissed by Supreme Court Westchester County. Res judicata bars all claims “ arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions … even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy ” (Jumax Assoc. v. 350 Cabrini Owners Corp., 110 A.D.3d 622, 623, 973 N.Y.S.2d 631 [1st Dept. 2013] [internal quotation marks omitted], lv denied 23 N.Y.3d 907, 2014 WL 2922240 [2014]). Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the dismissal in the Westchester action was on the merits. The order addressed the merits of the counterclaim, dismissing it on the basis of the settlement and the custody decision in the matrimonial action (see Plaza PH2001 LLC v. Plaza Residential Owner LP, 98 A.D.3d 89, 98, 947 N.Y.S.2d 498 [1st Dept. 2012] ).

R. A. Klass
Your Court Street Lawyer

Next post
Previous post

Statute of Limitations for Causes of Action Alleging Legal Malpractice

Posted on January 7, 2019 by Richard Klass

The Second Department, in Potenza v Giaimo, 165 AD3d 1186, 1187 [2d Dept 2018], dismissed a client’s legal malpractice action against his attorney based upon the statute of limitations. The court held:

The statute of limitations for causes of action alleging legal malpractice is three years (see CPLR 214[6]; Alizio v. Ruskin Moscou Faltischek, P.C., 126 A.D.3d 733, 735, 5 N.Y.S.3d 252). A cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice accrues when the malpractice is committed (see Shumsky v. Eisenstein, 96 N.Y.2d 164, 166, 726 N.Y.S.2d 365, 750 N.E.2d 67). However, pursuant to the doctrine of continuous representation, the limitations period is tolled until the attorney’s continuing representation of the client with regard to the particular matter terminates (see Shumsky v. Eisenstein, 96 N.Y.2d at 167–168, 726 N.Y.S.2d 365, 750 N.E.2d 67; Aqua–Trol Corp. v. Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, P.A., 144 A.D.3d 956, 957, 42 N.Y.S.3d 56). For the continuous representation doctrine to apply, “ there must be clear indicia of an ongoing, continuous, developing, and dependent relationship between the client and the attorney which often includes an attempt by the attorney to rectify an alleged act of malpractice ” (Luk Lamellen U. Kupplungbau GmbH v. Lerner, 166 A.D.2d 505, 506–507, 560 N.Y.S.2d 787).

R. A. Klass
Your Court Street Lawyer

Next post
Previous post

A party must be mindful of the applicable statute of limitations

Posted on September 14, 2018 by Richard Klass

When bringing an action, a party must be mindful of the applicable statute of limitations.

Recently, the Second Department in King Tower Realty Corp. v G & G Funding Corp., 163 AD3d 541, 543 [2d Dept 2018] held:

“ ‘ On a motion to dismiss a cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) as barred by the applicable statute of limitations, a defendant must establish, prima facie, that the time within which to sue has expired. Once that showing has been made, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to raise a question of fact as to whether the statute of limitations has been tolled, an exception to the limitations period is applicable, or the plaintiff actually commenced the action within the applicable limitations period ’ ” (Quinn v McCabe, Collins, McGeough & Fowler, LLP, 138 AD3d 1085, 1085-1086 [2016], quoting Tsafatinos v Law Off. of Sanford F. Young, P.C., 121 AD3d 969, 969 [2014]; see Alizio v Ruskin Moscou Faltischek, P.C., 126 AD3d 733, 734-735 [2015]; Landow v Snow Becker Krauss, P.C., 111 AD3d 795, 796 [2013]). An action to recover damages for legal malpractice must be commenced within three years of accrual (see CPLR 214 [6]; McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 301 [2002]; Quinn v McCabe, Collins, McGeough & Fowler, LLP, 138 AD3d at 1086; Alizio v Ruskin Moscou Faltischek, P.C., 126 AD3d at 735; Farage v Ehrenberg, 124 AD3d 159, 163 [2014]; Landow v Snow Becker Krauss, P.C., 111 AD3d at 796). “ A legal malpractice claim accrues ‘when all the facts necessary to the cause of action have occurred and an injured party can obtain relief in court ’ ” (McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d at 301, quoting Ackerman v Price Waterhouse, 84 NY2d 535, 541 [1994]; see Farage v Ehrenberg, 124 AD3d at 164). “ In most cases, this accrual time is measured from the day an actionable injury occurs, ‘ even if the aggrieved party is then ignorant of the wrong or injury ’ ” (McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d at 301, quoting Ackerman v Price Waterhouse, 84 NY2d at 541). “ A cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice accrues when the malpractice is committed, not when it is discovered ” (Alizio v Ruskin Moscou Faltischek, P.C., 126 AD3d at 735; see McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d at 301; Quinn v McCabe, Collins, McGeough & Fowler, LLP, 138 AD3d at 1086; Farage v Ehrenberg, 124 AD3d at 164; Landow v Snow Becker Krauss, P.C., 111 AD3d at 796). The continuous representation doctrine serves to toll the statute of limitations and render timely an otherwise time-barred cause of action for legal malpractice, but “ only where there is a mutual understanding of the need for further representation on the specific subject matter underlying the malpractice claim ” (McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d at 306; see Alizio v Ruskin Moscou Faltischek, P.C., 126 AD3d at 735).