On April 1, 2021, the First Department issued a decision in Boesky v. Levine, 2021 NY Slip Op. 02059, holding that the continuous representation doctrine saved a legal malpractice claim from being time-barred, explaining:
The claim should also be reinstated against Herrick Feinstein. This Court, in HNH Intl., Ltd. v Pryor Cashman Sherman & Flynn LLP (63 AD3d 534, 535 ), held that the statute of limitations was tolled as to a malpractice claim against a law firm because the attorney(s) who handled the case continued to represent the plaintiffs in the same matter, albeit while at different law firms. Additionally, the claim should be reinstated against Moritt Hock for the period from September 2012 through 2016, when Levine was a partner at the firm and was allegedly still representing plaintiffs in connection with the audits and tax litigation. The complaint sufficiently alleges that Levine, while at Moritt, continued to advise plaintiffs regarding the tax litigation and sufficiently alleges that but for Levine’s continued failure to properly advise them of the weaknesses of their case, they would have settled with the IRS to reduce their financial exposure and litigation costs.
(Internal citations omitted).
It is not unusual for the statute of limitations to be an issue in complex commercial litigation. Contact Schlam Stone & Dolan partner John Lundin at email@example.com if you or a client have questions regarding whether claims are barred by the statute of limitations.
Click here to subscribe to this or another of Schlam Stone & Dolan’s blogs.