On April 5, 2017, the Second Department issued a decision in Stein Industries, Inc. v. Certilman Balin Adler & Hyman, LLP, 2017 NY Slip Op. 02688, holding that questions of fact regarding when a legal representation ended precluded dismissal on statute of limitations grounds, explaining:
In moving to dismiss a cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) as barred by the applicable statute of limitations, the moving defendant bears the initial burden of demonstrating, prima facie, that the time within which to commence the cause of action has expired. The burden then shifts to the plaintiff to raise a question of fact as to whether the statute of limitations is tolled or is otherwise inapplicable.
The statute of limitations for the cause of action alleging legal malpractice is three years. The cause of action to recover damages for professional negligence, which arose from the same facts as the legal malpractice claim and did not allege distinct damages, was likewise governed by the three-year statute of limitations. A claim to recover damages for legal malpractice accrues when the malpractice is committed. However, pursuant to the doctrine of continuous representation, the time within which to sue on the claim is tolled until the attorney’s continuing representation of the client with regard to the particular matter terminates. For the continuous representation doctrine to apply, there must be clear indicia of an ongoing, continuous, developing, and dependant relationship between the client and the attorney which often includes an attempt by the attorney to rectify an alleged act of malpractice.
Here, the defendant satisfied its initial burden by demonstrating, prima facie, that the alleged legal malpractice occurred more than three years before this action was commenced in March 2015. In opposition, however, the plaintiffs raised a question of fact as to whether the applicable statute of limitations was tolled by the continuous representation doctrine. The plaintiffs submitted Andrew Stein’s affidavit, in which he averred that he met with members of the defendant on July 26, 2012, to determine how to rectify the pension liability issue. Andrew indicated that he was not satisfied with their recommendations concerning how to rectify the issue and directed them to formulate another idea. Andrew’s affidavit was sufficient to raise a question of fact as to whether the defendant engaged in a course of continuous representation intended to rectify or mitigate the initial act of alleged malpractice.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).