Nachama Hirsch is the pro-se defendant in this attorney fee-legal malpractice case.  She was the wife in a divorce where the husband was able to take the couples assets into bankruptcy during the period between the grant of an order against him and the entry, and in doing so took millions away from the rightful wife.  No amount of litigation in Bankruptcy Court, or in Supreme Court ever cured the problem.  Wile lost.

Now, in Forchelli , Curto , Deegan, Schwartz, Mineo, Cohn & Terrana, LLP v Hirsch, 2012 NY Slip Op 31317(U)  May 4, 2012  Sup Ct, Nassau County  Docket Number: 8151-11  Judge: Steven M. Jaeger she has avoided a huge bankruptcy attorney fee, and may even be able to prove legal malpractice.

"With respect to the first counterclaim, based on alleged misconduct committed prior to 2007 in the
underlying Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding, issues of fact exist as to whether Forchelli’ s admittedly continuing, post-2007 bankruptcy representation, operated as toll of the limitations period within the meaning of the continuous representation doctrine (e. g., DeStaso v. Condon Resnick, LLP 90 AD3d 809 812; Putnam County Temple Jewish Center, Inc. v. Rhinebeck Sav. Bank 87 AD3d 1118; Howish v. Perrotta 84 AD3d 1312; Leon Petroleum, LLC v. Carl S. Levine
& Associates, pc. 80 AD3d 573 , 574 see generally, Zorn v. Gilbert 8 NY3d 933 934 (2007); McCoy v. Feinman 99 NY2d 295, 306 (2002J;Shumsky v. Eisenstein 96 NY2d 164, 167- 168 (2001); CPLR 214(6J). Notably, "(tJo dismiss a cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (aJ(5) on the ground that it is barred by the applicable statute of limitations, a defendant bears the initial burden of
establishing, prima facie that the time in which to sue has expired" (DeStaso Condon Resnick, LLP, supra 90 AD3d 809 812).
Contrary to Forchelli’ s assertions (Gatto Aff. , ~~ 45-46), the conclusorily supported claim that its subsequent representation was entirely distinct because the bankruptcy proceeding was converted from a Chapter 11 to a Chapter 7 proceeding (Gatto Aff. , ~ 43; Gatto Reply Aff. , ~~ 33-37), does not establish its * 8] entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Similarly, the defendant’ s over biling and related claims (as interposed in the second counterclaim) – are not amenable
to summary resolution at this essentially pre-discovery juncture of the action (see generally, Gelobter v. Fox 90 AD3d 829, 831; Melito Adolfen, P. C. v. Travelers Indem. Co. , supra 2008 WL 4308287, at 3 see also, Bank of America NA. v. Hillside Cycles, Inc. 89 AD3d 653 , 654; Valdivia v. Consolidated Resistance Co. of America, Inc. 54 AD3d 753 , 755). The Court notes that in
advancing several of its factual claims , Forchelli relies on inconclusive snippets of testimony culled from the defendant’ pro se deposition, which was taken in one of the prior dismissed Forchell non-payment actions (e. g.,  Gatto Aff. , ~~ 31  , 53; Reply Aff.  30)(cf, Baillargeon Kings County Waterproofing Corp. , 29 AD3d 838, 839). "