DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiff commenced this legal malpractice action against the defendant in February 1998, alleging that his negligent representation caused the dismissal of her personal injury action. The defendant contends that the action is time-barred because the alleged acts of malpractice occurred in 1992. However, the record established that the defendant continued to represent the plaintiff in the personal injury action until at least June 1995 in an attempt to rectify the alleged acts of malpractice.
The continuous representation doctrine tolls the statute of limitations "until the completion of the attorney's ongoing representation concerning the matter out of which the malpractice claim arises" (Pellati v. Lite Lite, 290 A.D.2d 544, 545; see Shumsky v. Eisenstein, 96 N.Y.2d 164; Glamm v. Allen, 57 N.Y.2d 87). Accordingly, assuming that the alleged acts of malpractice occurred no later than 1992, the plaintiff met her burden of establishing that the statute of limitations was tolled by the continuous representation doctrine until June 1995 (see Pellati v. Lite Lite, supra; Luk Lamellen U. Kupplungbau GmbH v. Lerner, 166 A.D.2d 505). The malpractice action, which was commenced less than three years later, is not time-barred (see CPLR 214; Brothers v. Florence, 95 N.Y.2d 290).
FEUERSTEIN, J.P., SMITH, O'BRIEN and ADAMS, JJ., concur.