Pace v Horowitz 2021 NY Slip Op 00392 Decided on January 26, 2021
Appellate Division, First Department illustrates the power of the “date of mistake” statute of limitations in legal malpractice. Despite the problem that many mistakes do not surface for a long time, Courts rigorously apply the statute of limitations and are parsimonious in allowing continuous representation.
“The court correctly determined that plaintiffs failed to show that there is an issue of fact as to whether the legal malpractice claim was timely filed based on the application of the continuous representation doctrine toll (see Marzario v Snitow Kanfer Holzer & Millus, LLP, 178 AD3d 527, 528 [1st Dept 2019]). The continuous representation doctrine toll does not apply based merely on the existence of an ongoing professional relationship, but only where the particular course of representation giving rise to the particular problems resulting in the alleged malpractice is ongoing (see Matter of Lawrence, 24 NY3d 320, 341 ; Williamson v PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 9 NY3d 1 ). Here, while plaintiffs allege that defendant law firm provided continuing estate administration work as part of an ongoing professional relationship of estate administration, they do not adequately allege that the particular course of representation regarding the sale of estate assets in 2007, which gave rise to the malpractice allegations, continued through February 2015, so as to make the instant malpractice claim timely filed.”