Legal malpractice claims frequently arise over real estate. in Mandour v Rafalsky
2024 NY Slip Op 31086(U) April 1, 2024 Supreme Court, New York County
Docket Number: Index No. 651819/2022 Judge: Andrea Masley there is the added (frequent) dispute between siblings with death and incompetency issues thrown in.

“Plaintiffs Nariman M. Mandour, as both beneficiary and trustee of Nariman’s
Trust, together with Martin Wm. Goldman and Harvey I. Krasner as trustees of
Nariman’s Trust, on behalf of Nariman’s Trust individually, and derivatively on behalf of
10/3 Realty Corp. (RC) initiated this action on April 22, 2022 to invalidate agreements
related to the 2014 development of 47 Third Avenue in New York City.”

“Nariman’s Trust (the Trust) was established under the last will and testament of
decedent Peter Stein (Peter) for the lifetime benefit of Mandour, his spouse. (NYSCEF
Doc No. [NYSCEF] 26, FAC ,i 1; see NYSCEF 27, Last Will and Testament at§ 1 [E]
[1].) Mandour, Goldman, and Krasner serve as trustees. (NYSCEF 26, FAC ,i
2.) During his lifetime, Peter owned 10 shares, or one-third of all shares, in nominal
defendant RC, a New York corporation, and served as its president. (Id. ,i,i 1, 14,
27.) Schlesinger, Peter’s uncle, owns 10 shares in RC. (Id. ,i,i 5, 28.) Peter’s brothers,
Fredrick and Richard each own 5 shares, or one-sixth of the shares in RC. (Id. ,i,i 6-7,
28.) In January 2019, Peter fell ill and he passed away on September 4, 2020. (Id. ,i,i
5, 27.) Peter’s shares in RC passed to the Trust under Peter’s will. (Id. ,i 1.)

Rafalsky is an attorney who, individually or through his law firm Wood, Rafalsky
& Wood LLP (WRW), has represented RC and/or TSFH. (Id. ,i,i 8-9.) Rafalsky owns
and/or operates TRRKY, a New York corporation. (Id. ,i 8.) Rafalsky served as RC’s
attorney on the Capital Contribution Agreement. (NYSCEF 28, Capital Contribution
Agreement ,i 11.6 [B].)”

“The Rafalsky defendants argue that the legal malpractice claim is time-barred. A
three-year statute of limitations governs a cause of action for legal malpractice (CPLR
214 [6]), which begins to “accrue when the malpractice is committed, not when the client learns of it.” (Palmeri v Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, 156 AD3d 564, 567 [1 st Dept
2017] [citations omitted].) Where the alleged malpractice claim is predicated upon the
attorney’s failure to disclose a conflict of interest, the claim accrues from that date. ( See
Kvetnaya v Tylo, 49 AD3d 608, 609 [2d Dept 2008].)
In this case, the predicate acts underlying the malpractice claim occurred prior to
May 21, 2003, when the Development Agreement was executed. Plaintiffs commenced
this action in April 2022. As discussed supra, plaintiffs have failed to raise an issue of
fact that the continuous representation doctrine tolled the limitations period. Thus, the
legal malpractice claim is dismissed as time-barred.”