It seems to be a simple question.  What is the statute of limitations for legal malpractice?  After all, the Court of Appeals decided the issue squarely in Melcher v Greenberg Traurig, LLP  2014 NY Slip Op 02213 [23 NY3d 10]  April 1, 2014 Read, J. Court of Appeals.  “Thus, even if a claim for attorney deceit originated in the first Statute of Westminster rather than preexisting English common law (a question unresolved by Amalfitano and disputed by the parties in this case), liability for attorney deceit existed at New York common law prior to 1787. As a result, claims for attorney deceit are subject to the six-year statute of limitations in CPLR 213 (1). Because of our disposition of this appeal, we do not reach and need not resolve Melcher’s other arguments.”

Simple, no?  Not so simple.  Looking backwards, at one time there were different statutes of limitation for legal malpractice in tort (3 years) and in contact (6 years).  The legislature “solved” the problem by passing CPLR 214(6)  “The following actions must be commenced within three years:

So, when the issue of the statute of limitations for JL 487 comes up, the Second Department has charted its own course.  It has now determined, at least twice that when a JL 487 claim is enunciated in the same case with a Legal Malpractice claim, then its 6 year statute is transmuted to a 3 year statute, based upon the same logic as having a 6 year contract statute transmuted to a 3 year statute.  They wrote:

“The Odierno defendants demonstrated, prima facie, that the present action was commenced after expiration of the three-year statute of limitations applicable to the plaintiff’s legal malpractice cause of action (see CPLR 214 [6]). Moreover, since her cause of action alleging a violation of Judiciary Law § 487 is premised on the same facts and does not allege distinct damages, it too is barred by the three-year statute of limitations (see Farage v Ehrenberg, 124 AD3d 159, 169 [2014]; cf. Melcher v Greenberg Traurig, LLP, 23 NY3d 10, 15 [2014]).”