DANIELS v. LEBIT

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly determined that upon the execution of a consent to change attorney form on November 10, 1997, the defendants 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 any ongoing, continuous, developing, and dependent relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants after that date (see Piliero v. Adler Stavros, 282 A.D.2d 511; Wester v. Sussman, supra; Goicoechea v. Law Offs. of Stephen R. Kihl, 234 A.D.2d 507). Accordingly, the cause of action alleging legal malpractice is barred by the statute of limitations (see CPLR 214).

Additionally, the plaintiff's causes of action alleging breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraudulent misrepresentation were properly dismissed by the Supreme Court as they are duplicative of the legal malpractice cause of action. Those causes of action arise from the same facts as the malpractice claim, and do not allege distinct damages (see Mecca v. Shang, 258 A.D.2d 569, 570; Sage Realty Corp. v. Proskauer Rose, 251 A.D.2d 35, 38-39; see also Boyd v. Gering, Gross Gross, 226 A.D.2d 489).

SANTUCCI, J.P., SCHMIDT, TOWNES and MASTRO, JJ., concur.