CPLR 203(d) is a little known exception to the three-year statute of limitations for legal malpractice under CPLR 214(6), and allows any claims, whether time barred or not, to survive as an offset. In Landy Wolf, PLLC v Sanko 2025 NY Slip Op 33690(U) September 27, 2025 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 651419/2024 Judge Nicholas W. Moyne demonstrates how it is applied.

“The Plaintiff, L W ( or its predecessor Steven Landy & Associates, PLLC), commenced this action seeking to recover $268,084.33 in unpaid legal fees owed by its former client, Sanko. L W represented Sanko in a complex multi-party action concerning the partition and sale of property located at 801-803 Greenwich Street (the “Property”). LW ceased representing Sanko on January 28, 2020. Sanko filed his Answer and Counterclaims in this action on May 7, 2024. · Sanko asserts counterclaims againstLW for Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Unjust Enrichment, and Breach of Contract, arguing that the fees sought by L W arose from representation “marred by unwaivable conflicts of interest.” The core of Sanko’ s defense and counterclaims rests upon L W’s representation of Sanko, Sank.o’s ex-wife Mary “Tai” Burnette, and Craig Abramowitz (the lender) simultaneously.”

“L W correctly asserts that claims sounding in legal malpractice, regardless of nomenclature (contractor tort), are subject to a three-year Statute of Limitations (SOL), pursuant to CPLR § 214(6). The representation ended on January 28, 2020,meaning the SOL for professional negligence and/or legal malpractice expired on January 28, 2023. Since Sanko filed his counterclaims on May 7, 2024, any claims seeking affirmative damages or judgment beyond the amount demanded by L W are clearly time-barred. However, Sanko correctly invokes CPLR § 203( d), which permits a defense or counterclaim arising from the same transactions or occurrences upon which the complaint depends to be maintained as an offset, even if time-barred as an independent action. L W’s claims for breach of contract, accounts stated, and quantum meruit all stem from the professional relationship and the billing practices challenged by Sanko. Therefore, L W’s motion to dismiss based on the Statute of Limitations is granted only to the extent that Sanko’s counterclaims seek affirmative monetary relief (i.e., damages exceeding $268,084.33, the amount L W demands). The motion is denied as to the remainder of the claims, which are preserved as defenses and offsets against L W’s demand for unpaid fees, pursuant to CPLR § 203(d). A similar result applies to the breach of fiduciary duty counterclaim. L W argues that the BFD claim fails due to lack of particularity (CPLR 3016(b)) and because documentary evidence (Conflict Waivers) refutes the claim. The BFD claim alleges that L W breached its duty by failing to provide services “untainted by divided loyalty” through the simultaneous representation of Sanko (borrower), Burnette, and Abramowitz (lender). Sank.o’s core argument is that the alleged ethical violation (simultaneous adverse representation) mandates a forfeiture of fees, independent of proving traditional legal malpractice damages. L W concedes that allegations concerning misconduct, billing practices, and divided loyalty, if proven, are a basis for asserting a counterclaim ( or defense) related to fee entitlement. This issue of whether the alleged misconduct warrants a forfeiture of fees paid or owed must be resolved through fact-finding.”

“The Court finds that Sanko’s counterclaims survive as defenses and offsets pursuant to CPLR § 203( d) due to pervasive factual disputes concerning the ethical validity of L W’s representation, the existence of a waivable conflict (Ethics Opinion 952), the scope of services rendered, and the legitimacy of the fees billed. Therefore, it is hereby ordered that the motion to dismiss the counterclaims is granted only to the extent that the counterclaims asserted by the defendant Anton Sanko seek affirmative monetary relief in excess of the amount demanded in the Complaint; and it is further ordered that the plaintiffs motion is denied in all other respects, and the defendant’s counterclaims are retained solely as defenses and offsets against the amounts sought by the Plaintiff; and it is further ordered that all parties are directed to proceed with disclosure.”

“

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Andrew Lavoott Bluestone

Andrew Lavoott Bluestone has been an attorney for 40 years, with a career that spans criminal prosecution, civil litigation and appellate litigation. Mr. Bluestone became an Assistant District Attorney in Kings County in 1978, entered private practice in 1984 and in 1989 opened…

Andrew Lavoott Bluestone has been an attorney for 40 years, with a career that spans criminal prosecution, civil litigation and appellate litigation. Mr. Bluestone became an Assistant District Attorney in Kings County in 1978, entered private practice in 1984 and in 1989 opened his private law office and took his first legal malpractice case.

Since 1989, Bluestone has become a leader in the New York Plaintiff’s Legal Malpractice bar, handling a wide array of plaintiff’s legal malpractice cases arising from catastrophic personal injury, contracts, patents, commercial litigation, securities, matrimonial and custody issues, medical malpractice, insurance, product liability, real estate, landlord-tenant, foreclosures and has defended attorneys in a limited number of legal malpractice cases.

Bluestone also took an academic role in field, publishing the New York Attorney Malpractice Report from 2002-2004.  He started the “New York Attorney Malpractice Blog” in 2004, where he has published more than 4500 entries.

Mr. Bluestone has written 38 scholarly peer-reviewed articles concerning legal malpractice, many in the Outside Counsel column of the New York Law Journal. He has appeared as an Expert witness in multiple legal malpractice litigations.

Mr. Bluestone is an adjunct professor of law at St. John’s University College of Law, teaching Legal Malpractice.  Mr. Bluestone has argued legal malpractice cases in the Second Circuit, in the New York State Court of Appeals, each of the four New York Appellate Divisions, in all four of  the U.S. District Courts of New York and in Supreme Courts all over the state.  He has also been admitted pro haec vice in the states of Connecticut, New Jersey and Florida and was formally admitted to the US District Court of Connecticut and to its Bankruptcy Court all for legal malpractice matters. He has been retained by U.S. Trustees in legal malpractice cases from Bankruptcy Courts, and has represented municipalities, insurance companies, hedge funds, communications companies and international manufacturing firms. Mr. Bluestone regularly lectures in CLEs on legal malpractice.

Based upon his professional experience Bluestone was named a Diplomate and was Board Certified by the American Board of Professional Liability Attorneys in 2008 in Legal Malpractice. He remains Board Certified.  He was admitted to The Best Lawyers in America from 2012-2019.  He has been featured in Who’s Who in Law since 1993.

In the last years, Mr. Bluestone has been featured for two particularly noteworthy legal malpractice cases.  The first was a settlement of an $11.9 million dollar default legal malpractice case of Yeo v. Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman which was reported in the NYLJ on August 15, 2016. Most recently, Mr. Bluestone obtained a rare plaintiff’s verdict in a legal malpractice case on behalf of the City of White Plains v. Joseph Maria, reported in the NYLJ on February 14, 2017. It was the sole legal malpractice jury verdict in the State of New York for 2017.

Bluestone has been at the forefront of the development of legal malpractice principles and has contributed case law decisions, writing and lecturing which have been recognized by his peers.  He is regularly mentioned in academic writing, and his past cases are often cited in current legal malpractice decisions. He is recognized for his ample writings on Judiciary Law § 487, a 850 year old statute deriving from England which relates to attorney deceit.

Read more about Andrew Lavoott BluestoneAndrew Lavoott's Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less