Case is marked "disposed."  This can happen when there is a failure to appear in court, when a motion goes unanswered, or when some other event transpires and the court routinely "disposes" of a case administratively.  It can also happen after a contested motion is decided.  How Plaintiff’s case was disposed of in Champlin v Pellegrin 2013 NY Slip Op 07257  Decided on November 7, 2013  Appellate Division, First Department we don’t know.
 

What we do know, from the decision, is that none of the suggested reasons why the case was still timely worked.  "Contrary to plaintiff’s assertions, the claim was not tolled by the continuous representation doctrine. Generally, tolling under the continuous representation doctrine "end[s] once the client is informed or otherwise put on notice of the attorney’s withdrawal from representation" (Shumsky v Eisenstein, 96 NY2d 164, 171 [2001]). The parties do not dispute that there were no communications between them from 1994 until 2011, when plaintiff purported to discharge defendant from representing him. The more than 16-year lapse in communications from defendant was sufficient to constitute reasonable notice to plaintiff that defendant was no longer representing him.

Furthermore, as there was no "clear indicia of an ongoing, continuous, developing, and dependent relationship between [plaintiff and defendant]" (Pittelli v Schulman, 128 AD2d 600, 601 [2d Dept 1987] [internal quotation marks omitted]), or a "mutual understanding of the need for further representation on the specific subject matter[s] underlying the malpractice claim" [*2](McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 306 [2002]), we find that plaintiff’s reliance on CPLR 321(b) is misplaced. "