AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges

MARIA PILIERO, ETC., APPELLANT, v. ADLER STAVROS, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

An action to recover damages for legal malpractice accrues when the malpractice is committed (see, Glamm v. Allen, 57 N.Y.2d 87; Goicoechea v. Law Offs. of Stephen R. Kihl, 234 A.D.2d 507; Garden City Imaging Ctr. v. Lawrence Walsh, 234 A.D.2d 414; Tal-Spons Corp. v. Nurnberg, 213 A.D.2d 395). Pursuant to the continuous representation doctrine, the Statute of Limitations for causes of action sounding in legal malpractice is tolled until the attorney's ongoing representation concerning the matter out of which the claim arises is completed (see, Weiss v. Manfredi, 83 N.Y.2d 974; Shumsky v. Eisenstein, 270 A.D.2d 245). For the doctrine to apply, there must be "clear indicia of an ongoing, continuous, developing, and dependent relationship between the client and the attorney often involving an attempt by the attorney to rectify an alleged act of malpractice" (Luk Lamellen U. Kupplungbau GmbH v. Lerner, 166 A.D.2d 505, 506; see, Pittelli v. Schulman, 128 A.D.2d 600, 601). One of the predicates is the client's continuing trust and confidence (see, Coyne v. Bersani, 61 N.Y.2d 939; Aaron v. Roemer, Wallens Mineaux, 272 A.D.2d 752, 755; Pittelli v. Schulman, supra, at 601).

In this case, the relationship necessary to invoke the continuous representation rule ceased to exist when the plaintiff retained new counsel on November 27, 1995, and requested by letter December 15, 1995, that the defendants take no further action on the matter in question. The mere fact that the defendants did not sign a stipulation formally substituting incoming counsel as attorneys for the plaintiff until September 26, 1996, does not establish that the representation was continuous until that date (see, Aaron v. Roemer, Wallens Mineaux, supra; Pittelli v. Schulman, supra). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint as the action was commenced over 3 1/2 years after the conclusion of the representation (see, CPLR 214; Kahn v. Hart, 270 A.D.2d 231).

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

PILIERO v. ADLER STAVROS
(Apr 5, 2001)