Piliero v. Adler & Stavros, 282 A.D.2d 511 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). · Go Syfert
Search
Piliero v. Adler & Stavros, 282 A.D.2d 511 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
29 citation events (29 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 2001 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2001 2013 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) O.K. Petroleum International, Ltd. v. Palmieri & Castiglione, LLP
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Kroll & Assoc., PLLC, 106 AD3d 1037, 1038 [2013]; Rupolo v Fish, 87 AD3d 684, 685 [2011]; Piliero v Adler & Stavros, 282 AD2d 511, 512 [2001]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Farage v. Ehrenberg
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
The termination of the parties’ attorney-client relationship is also verified by the defendant’s correspondence to the plaintiffs physical therapist dated January 15, 2007, stating that the plaintiff had asked him “to stop handling th[e] matter,” and by correspondence to the defendant from the plaintiffs incoming counsel dated November 19, 2007, stating that the plaintiff “regards you as her discharged attorney,” unauthorized “to enforce the [contested] stipulation” that settled the 2002 action (see Piliero v Adler & Stavros, 282 AD2d 511, 512 [2001]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Tsafatinos v. Law Office of Sanford F. Young, P.C.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
In opposition, the appellant failed to raise a question of fact (see Bullfrog, LLC v Nolan, 102 AD3d at 719 ; Daniels v Turco, 84 AD3d 858 , 858- *970 859 [2011]; Piliero v Adler & Stavros, 282 AD2d 511, 511-512 [2001]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Red Zone LLC v. Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP
N.Y. Sup. Ct. · 2013 · confidence medium
The state case that Docster cites for its authority on this issue articulates a far narrower rule: “[i]n these special circumstances, where the attorney promptly moves to withdraw and the client acknowledges in writing an irreparable deterioration of the attorney-client relationship, we conclude that the relationship necessary to invoke the continuous treatment rule did not persist” (Aaron v Roemer, Wallens & Mineaux, 272 AD2d 752, 755 [3d Dept 2000]; see also Tal-Spons Corp. at 397 [holding that the dispositive issue was not outside consultation but a “history of litigation” between t…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Aseel v. Jonathan E. Kroll & Associates, PLLC
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
“For the doctrine to apply, there must be ‘clear indicia of an ongoing, continuous, developing, and dependent relationship between the client and the attorney’ ” (Piliero v Adler & Stavros, 282 AD2d 511, 512 [2001], quoting Luk Lamellen U. Kupplungbau GmbH v Lerner, 166 AD2d 505, 506 [1990]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fleyshman v. Suckle & Schlesinger, PLLC
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
All of the documentary evidence demonstrated that the relationship necessary to invoke the continuous representation doctrine terminated in August 2006, and the plaintiffs submissions did not indicate that her trust and confidence in the defendants continued, or was restored, after that date (see Rupolo v Fish, 87 AD3d 684 [2011]; Krichmar v Scher, 82 AD3d at 1165 ; Marro v Handwerker, Marchelos & Gayner, 1 AD3d 488 [2003]; Piliero v Adler & Stavros, 282 AD2d 511, 512 [2001]; Aaron v Roemer, Wallens & Mineaux, 272 AD2d 752, 754-755 [2000]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sladowski v. Casolaro
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
The action was commenced on August 13, 2007, and the three-year statute of limitations (see CFLR 214 [6]) began to run as to Casolaro no later than July 13, 2004, when the plaintiff signed a consent to change attorney form, the effect of which was to end Casolaro’s representation of the plaintiff in the underlying action (see Loria v Cerniglia, 69 AD3d 583 [2010]; Frost Line Refrig., Inc. v Gastwirth, Mirsky & Stein, LLP, 25 AD3d 532, 532-533 [2006]; Sommers v Cohen, 14 AD3d 691, 693 [2005]; Marro v Handwerker, Marchelos & Gayner, 1 AD3d 488 [2003]; Daniels v Lebit, 299 AD2d 310 [2002]; West…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Marlett v. Hennessy
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · confidence medium
Here, the representation of plaintiffs by the Hennessy defendants did not continue beyond February 25, 1994, the date on which plaintiffs explicitly “terminated the] services” of the Hennessy defendants (see Cerio v Koldin, 289 AD2d 1080 [2001]; Piliero v Adler & Stavros, 282 AD2d 511, 512 [2001]; Aaron v Roemer, Wallens & Mineaux, 272 AD2d 752 , 754-755 [2000], lv dismissed 96 NY2d 730 [2001]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sommers v. Cohen
N.Y. App. Div. · 2005 · confidence medium
However, the limitations period was tolled by the doctrine of continuous representation, pursuant to which the statute of limitations period does not begin to run until the attorney ceases representing the client on the matter which is the subject of the malpractice action (see Shumsky v Eisenstein, 96 NY2d 164, 168 [2001]; Glamm v Allen, supra at 94 ; Piliero v Adler & Stavros, 282 AD2d 511, 512 [2001]; Goicoechea v Law Offices of Stephen R.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Marro v. Handwerker, Marchelos & Gayner
N.Y. App. Div. · 2003 · confidence medium
The continuous representation doctrine does not apply since there is no evidence of an ongoing, continuous, developing, and dependent relationship between the plaintiff and the law firm after that date (see Piliero v Adler & Stavros, 282 AD2d 511, 512 [2001]; Wester v Sussman, supra).
discussed Cited "see" Beroza v. Sallah Law Firm, P.C.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
Kroll & Assoc., PLLC, 106 AD3d at 1038 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Piliero v Adler & Stavros, 282 AD2d 511, 512 [2001]). “ ‘One of the predicates for the application of the doctrine is continuing trust and confidence in the relationship between the parties’ ” (Aseel v Jonathan E.
discussed Cited "see" Kanter v. Pieri
N.Y. App. Div. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
Critically, it must be established that there is “continuing trust and confidence in the relationship between the parties” (Luk Lamellen U. Kupplungbau GmbH, 166 AD2d at 507 ; see Piliero v Adler & Stavros, 282 AD2d 511, 512 [2001]; Aaron, 272 AD2d at 755).
discussed Cited "see" Pellati v. Lite & Lite
N.Y. App. Div. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
For the continuous representation doctrine to apply, there must be “clear indicia of an ongoing, continuous, developing, and dependent relationship between the client and the attorney which often includes an attempt by the attorney to rectify an alleged act of malpractice” (Luk Lamellen U. Kupplungbau GmbH v Lerner, 166 AD2d 505, 506-507 ; see, Piliero v Adler & Stavros, supra; Pittelli v Schulman, 128 AD2d 600 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Maria Piliero
v.
Adler & Stavros
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Apr 9, 2001.
282 A.D.2d 511
Cited by 21 opinions  |  Published

—In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated June 6, 2000, as granted that branch of the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) which was to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

An action to recover damages for legal malpractice accrues when the malpractice is committed (see, Glamm v Allen, 57[*512] NY2d 87; Goicoechea v Law Offs. of Stephen R. Kihl, 234 AD2d 507; Garden City Imaging Ctr. v Lawrence & Walsh, 234 AD2d 414; Tal-Spons Corp. v Nurnberg, 213 AD2d 395). Pursuant to the continuous representation doctrine, the Statute of Limitations for causes of action sounding in legal malpractice is tolled until the attorney’s ongoing representation concerning the matter out of which the claim arises is completed (see, Weiss v Manfredi, 83 NY2d 974; Shumsky v Eisenstein, 270 AD2d 245). For the doctrine to apply, there must be “clear indicia of an ongoing, continuous, developing, and dependent relationship between the client and the attorney often involving an attempt by the attorney to rectify an alleged act of malpractice” (Luk Lamellen U. Kupplungbau GmbH v Lerner, 166 AD2d 505, 506-507; see, Pittelli v Schulman, 128 AD2d 600, 601). One of the predicates is the client’s continuing trust and confidence (see, Coyne v Bersani, 61 NY2d 939; Aaron v Roemer, Wallens & Mineaux, 272 AD2d 752, 755; Pittelli v Schulman, supra, at 601).

In this case, the relationship necessary to invoke the continuous representation rule ceased to exist when the plaintiff retained new counsel on November 27, 1995, and requested by letter dated December 15, 1995, that the defendants take no further action on the matter in question. The mere fact that the defendants did not sign a stipulation formally substituting incoming counsel as attorneys for the plaintiff until September 26, 1996, does not establish that the representation was continuous until that date (see, Aaron v Roemer, Wallens & Mineaux, supra; Pittelli v Schulman, supra). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint as the action was commenced over 3V2 years after the conclusion of the representation (see, CPLR 214 [6]; Kahn v Hart, 270 AD2d 231). O’Brien, J. P., Friedmann, Goldstein and Smith, JJ., concur.