Continuous representation tolls the statute of limitations in legal and professional malpractice. There are other more general tolls that apply to all cases, such as infancy and insanity. Here, in Estate of Smulewicz v Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP 2018 NY Slip Op 02722 Decided on April 19, 2018 Appellate Division, First Department plaintiff got the benefit of continuous representation, but not “insanity” in the nature of dementia.
“Defendant established its entitlement to dismissal on statute of limitation grounds by submitting evidence that the malpractice occurred in 2008, but plaintiff did not commence this action until March 2016, well beyond the three-year limitation period for legal malpractice (CPLR 214; see McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 301 ; Ackerman v Price Waterhouse, 84 NY2d 535, 541 ; Glamm v Allen, 57 NY2d 87, 93 ). Even accepting plaintiffs’ continuous-representation argument, there is no evidence that such continued representation went beyond, at most, July 16, 2012, which still renders plaintiffs’ action untimely. Plaintiffs’ argument that the limitation period was tolled by the decedent’s alleged dementia is also unavailing, as there is no evidence that the decedent suffered from such disability at the time the claim accrued (CPLR 208), or that it rendered her “unable to protect [her] legal rights because of an over-all inability to function in society” (McCarthy v Volkswagen of Am., 55 NY2d 543, 548 ; see Burgos v City of New York, 294 AD2d 177 [1st Dept 2002]).”