It’s pretty well accepted that a legal malpractice claim accrues on the date the mistake is made, but in . DURAN, -v-  MOODY, REDNISS MOODY LLP, EDWARD J. GREENFIELD, LAW OFFICE OF EDWARD J. GREENFIELD,  Defendants.  o. 11 Civ. 6155 (LTS)(JLC)  UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK   2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97977 we see the elusive alternative theory of accrual.  That (once in a great while) alternative theory is that a cause of action acrues only when plaintiff suffers an injury which entitles her to relief. 
 

"Greenfield argues that Duran’s claims are barred by New York’s three-year statute of limitations for legal malpractice claims. See N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214. According to Greenfield, the statute of limitations commenced with his termination in February 2007 — four years prior to the filing of the complaint. However, the statute of limitations for a malpractice claim accrues when the plaintiff suffers an injury that entitles her to relief. Ackerman v. Price Waterhouse, 84 N.Y.2d 535, 541 (1994); see also Kronos. Inc. v. AVX Corp., 81 N.Y.2d 90, 94 (1993). While the Complaint alleges that Greenfield had acted negligently as of February 2007, there is no indication that [*7] Greenfield’s alleged negligence resulted in any legally cognizable injury prior to May 13, 2009, when the New York Supreme Court granted summary judgment as to most of Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff’s suit against Greenfield was therefore timely filed."