We affirm, on timeliness grounds, the dismissal of the causes of action for accounting malpractice, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting the individual defendants' breach of fiduciary duty, and other negligence-based claims against PricewaterhouseCoopers. CPLR 214 (6) imposes a three-year limitations period on (non-medical) professional malpractice claims, "regardless of whether the underlying theory is based in contract or tort." That period began to run, at the latest, on the date respondent delivered its last report to the companies (see Ackerman v. Price Waterhouse, 84 N.Y.2d 535), and not, as plaintiff argues, several months later when respondent resigned the representation. The continuous representation doctrine does not apply here to alter the accrual date of these causes of action.
The motion court's subsequent ruling of October 7, 2002, granting plaintiff leave to replead its fraud claim, renders moot that aspect of the appeal which challenged the dismissal of plaintiff's earlier fraud cause of action. We reject the suggestion of PricewaterhouseCoopers that this Court must still rule on the issue of whether the fraud claim was duplicative of the malpractice claim; that fraud claim has been superseded, and the propriety of the new claim may only be reviewed by this Court upon appeal from a ruling on that new pleading.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.