When may a legal malpractice litigant obtain prejudgment interest (interest from the date of malpractice to present)?  When the malpractice arises from the loss of a cause of action.  In DiTONDO v Meagher ; 2011 NY Slip Op 04805 ; Decided on June 9, 2011 ; Appellate Division, Third Department  the third department enunciated two principals.  The first is that when a contract cause of action arises from the same facts and depends on the same damages as the tort cause of action, it is redundant.
 

When damages arise from a lost cause of action, prejudgment interest will apply.

 "Where an individual claim of breach of contract arises out of the same facts as an asserted legal malpractice cause of action and does not allege distinct damages, the breach of contract claim is duplicative of the malpractice claim (see Turner v Irving Finkelstein & [*2]Meirowitz, LLP, 61 AD3d 849, 850 [2009]; Garten v Shearman & Sterling LLP, 52 AD3d 207, 207-208 [2008]; Peak v Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart & Rhodes, P.C., 28 AD3d 1028, 1031 [2006]; see also 76 NY Jur 2d, Malpractice § 37). Therefore, we agree with Supreme Court that plaintiffs’ proposed amendment to the complaint, asserting a breach of contract cause of action based upon the same facts as the legal malpractice claim, is redundant and their motion was appropriately denied.
However, "’CPLR 5001 operates to permit an award of prejudgment interest from the date of the accrual of the malpractice action in actions seeking damages for attorney malpractice’" (Barnett v Schwartz, 47 AD3d 197, 208 [2007], quoting Horstmann v Nicholas J. Grasso, P.C., 210 AD2d 671, 673 [1994]; see Mizuno v Fischoff & Assoc., 82 AD3d 849, 850 [2011]; Leach v Bailly, 57 AD3d 1286, 1289 [2008]; but see Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 444 n 3 [2007]). Moreover, as here, "[w]here the injury suffered [as a result of legal malpractice] is the loss of a cause of action, the measure of damages is generally the value of the claim lost," whether the malpractice claim sounds in negligence or in breach of contract (Campagnola v Mulholland, Minion & Roe, 76 NY2d 38, 42 [1990]). Thus, contrary to defendants’ contentions, Supreme Court erred by dismissing plaintiffs’ claim for preverdict interest. "