Pepper v Jennings  2019 NY Slip Op 33755(U) December 27, 2019 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 101392/2018 Judge: Carol R. Edmead holds that not all representation by an attorney is “continuous representation.’  In this case, Meeting with the judgment clerk on behalf of a prior client is insufficient to demonstrate continuing representation.

“In this legal malpractice action, Defendant Walter Jennings moves for dismissal of the complaint against him pursuant to the applicable statute oflimitations under CPLR 3211 (a)(5). Plaintiff opposes the motion and cross-moves for an order pursuant to CPLR 3013 dismissing
Defendant’s motion.”

“Plaintiffs final argument that the statute of limitations defense is factually inapplicable is also without merit. Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s representation of Plaintiff occurred up through September 22, 2015, meaning that it would have been just within the three-year window.

“It is well settled that a claim for legal malpractice accrues as of the date of the malpractice complained of or, if the attorney-client relationship has continued, as of the date when that relationship terminates” (Johnston v Raskin, 193 AD2d 786 [2d Dept 1993], citing
Glamm v. Allen, 57 NY2d 87 [1982]). Here, Defendant’s representation of Plaintiff terminated in September 2014 when Plaintiff requested his file bet transferred to new counsel (NYSCEF doc No. 17). The entire matter that Defendant represented Plaintiff in connection with was settled by Plaintiffs new counsel in February 2015 (NYSCEF doc No. 19). While Defendant did submit a bill to Plaintiff with an entry dated September 22, 2015, that entry is for Defendant meeting with the judgment clerk on the status of the Civil Court case (NYSCEF doc No. 30, ~ 21 ). That entry
thus cannot be a cause of action to Plaintiffs malpractice claim as it is in no way related to Defendant’s representation of Plaintiff.”