Plaintiffs attempted to bring a legal malpractice action after three years had elapsed, and relied upon pleadings which cited “fraud.”  The Appellate Division reminded all that there is no real circumvention of the statute of limitations, and that the fraud has to be extrinsic to the attorney-client relationship.

Hsu v Liu & Shields LLP   2015 NY Slip Op 03084  Decided on April 14, 2015  Appellate Division, First Department was affirmed.

“While the complaint alleges that “[t]his is an attorneys’ breach of agreement and malpractice case,” it does also contain some allegations of defendants’ fraudulent conduct. However, even affording the complaint a liberal construction and according plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference (Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]), the fraud allegations in the complaint are duplicative of plaintiffs’ untimely legal malpractice claims (see Murray Hill Invs. v Parker Chapin Flattau & Klimpl, 305 AD2d 228, 228-229 [1st Dept 2003] [affirming dismissal of fraud claim as duplicative of the untimely legal malpractice claim, and noting that it was asserted in an attempt to circumvent the legal malpractice limitations period]; see also Penner v Hoffberg Oberfest Burger & Berger, 303 AD2d 249 [1st Dept 2003] [fraudulent concealment cause of action dismissed as duplicative of accounting malpractice claims]), and cannot be used by plaintiffs to circumvent the shorter statute of limitations for legal malpractice.

We reject plaintiffs’ due process arguments since the record indicates that plaintiffs submitted papers to the motion court in connection with the motions and, at oral argument,[*2]plaintiffs were given the opportunity to speak, but declined to do so.”