This case was brought against the estate of an attorney, and claims legal malpractice.  One sometimes wonders how the family of a deceased attorney picks up the pieces of the practice, turns what assets remain (especially cases in situ) into something of value, hands the cases off to other attorneys, and closes out that portion of their lives.

Here, the estate is sued for claimed mistakes in the handling of a security agreement, and the loss of a significant amount of money.  In Americana Capital Corp. v Nardella ; 2011 NY Slip Op 33002(U); November 9, 2011 ; Supreme Court, New York County; Docket Number: 604179/2005
Judge: Saliann Scarpulla, we see the following:

In or about November 2005, ACT commenced this action alleging that the deceased, Allan J. Goodman, ("Goodman") committed legal malpractice by negligently preparing a November 3002 Master Security Agreement and related documents. ‘There was no retainer agreement executed by Goodman and ACC’s president and sole shareholder Garald R. Paulis (“Paulis”). According to the allegations of the complaint, the Agreement was intended to secure a loan from ACC to Frank Kania ("Kania") by placing certain of‘Kania’s antiques and real property as collateral.  If Kania breached the Agreement, ACC could seize all  of his collateral property. Kania signed the Agreement and a modification to the Agreement on November IS, 2002.  Paulis signed the
Agreement on November 29, 2002.

In or about August 2003, Kania defaulted on his loans from ACC.  In November 2003, ACC  contacted attorney Howard Kantrowitz ("Kantrowitz") who  ultimately concluded (hat the Agreement would be unenforceable in Connecticut, where the collateral property was located. In or around 2005, Kantrowitz prepared a new security agreement  for Kania and ACC that was enforceable in Connecticut.  Pursuant to that agreement, the amount owed to ACC was reduced from 1.75 million to 1.3 million dollars.  Kania’s collateral was collected and sold, however, according to ACC, the assets only brought in a fraction of the amount loaned to and owed by Kania.

 A legal malpractice claim accrues when all of the facts necessary to the claim have occurred  and an injured party can obtain relief in court.  McCoy v. Feinman, 99 N.Y.2d 295, 301
(2002). Here, the Agreement, which is the subject of the legal malpractice action, was
fully executed when signed by Paulis on November 29, 2002. As such, ACC’s claim could only accrue as of that date, when the Agreement became practicable. Thus, because the summons with notice was filed on November 23, 2005, the legal malpractice claim is not time barred..
 

Further, this action is not barred by the Dead Man’s Statute. Pursuant to CPLR 4519 the Dead Man’s Statute docs not, by its terms, prohibit the introduction or documentary evidence against a deceased estate. Rather, an adverse party’s introduction of a document authored by a deceased "does riot violate the Dead Man’s Statute, as long as the document is authenticated by a source other than an interested witnesses’ testimony concerning a transaction with the deceased.