LAI v. GARTLAN

Plaintiffs' legal malpractice claims were time-barred. The documentation plaintiffs submitted showed only the continuation of a general professional relationship, and not an ongoing representation concerning the specific matters from which their claims arose ( see Parlato v. Equitable Life Assur. Socy. of U.S., 299 AD2d 108, lv denied 99 NY2d 508; cf. Shumsky v. Eisenstein, 96 NY2d 164). Furthermore, the second amended complaint failed to plead fraud by Wankoff with sufficient specificity ( see CPLR 3016 [b]). Plaintiffs failed, inter alia, to allege any material misrepresentation by Wankoff or any material omission he knew to be false ( see J.A.O. Acquisition Corp. v. Stavitsky, 18 AD3d 389).