MARRO v. HANDWERKER, MARCHELOS GAYNER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The Supreme Court properly determined that, upon the execution of a consent to change attorney form on November 5, 1998, the law firm of Handwerker, Marchelos Gayner ceased to represent the plaintiff ( see Wester v. Sussman, 287 A.D.2d 618; Elliott v. Jacobs, 221 A.D.2d 889). The continuous representation doctrine does not apply since there is no evidence of an ongoing, continuous, developing, and dependent relationship between the plaintiff and the law firm after that date ( see Piliero v. Adler Stavros, 282 A.D.2d 511, 512; Wester v. Sussman, supra). Accordingly, the cause of action alleging legal malpractice is barred by the statute of limitations ( see CPLR 214).

ALTMAN, J.P., FLORIO, FRIEDMANN and MASTRO, JJ., concur.