continuous representation doctrine in New York

2026In a legal malpractice action, the continuous representation doctrine tolls the statute of limitations only where the continuing representation pertains specifically to the matter in which the attorney committed the alleged malpractice ( Shumsky v Eisenstein , 96 NY2d 164, 168 [2001]).

2025However, the continuous representation doctrine will toll a statute of limitations on a professional malpractice action when there is a continuing professional relationship between parties that specifically pertains to the matter in which the alleged malpractice was committed in the first place (see Shumsky, 96 NY2d 164 ).

2025"The continuous representation doctrine tolls the statute of limi tat ions . where there is a mutual understanding of the need for further representation on the specific subject underlying the malpractice claim" (Zorn v Gilbert, 8 NY3d 933 , 934 [2007 ] quoting McCoy , 99 NY2d at 306 ).

2024NO. 89 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024 contested matter or transaction." (Matter of Lawrence, 24 NY3d 320,341 [2014] [citations omitted], rearg denied 24 NY3d 1215 [2015].) Importantly, there must be "a mutual understanding of the need for further representation on the specific subject matter underlying the ... claim." (McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 306 [2002].) Here, plaintiffs fail to raise an issue of fact that the continuous representation doctrine applies.

2019Contrary to plaintiff's contentions, the continuous representation doctrine is inapplicable, because defendants were retained under two separately executed retainer agreements in the divorce action and the fraud action ( see Glamm v Allen , 57 NY2d 87, 93-94 [1982]; see also Shumsky , 96 NY2d at 168 ).

2018However, legal malpractice claims which would otherwise be barred by the statute of limitations are timely if the doctrine of continuous representation applies ( see Glamm v Allen , 57 NY2d 87, 91-94 ; Alizio v Ruskin Moscou Faltischek, P.C. , 126 AD3d 733, 735 ; Farage v Ehrenberg , 124 AD3d at 164 ), in which case the three-year statute of limitations is tolled for the period following the alleged malpractice "until the attorney's continuing representation of the client on a particular matter is completed" ( Farage v Ehrenberg , 124 AD3d at 164 ; see Zorn v Gilbert , 8 NY3d 933, 934 ; Glamm

2024Stated differently, the continuous representation doctrine tolls the statute of limitations for a claim of legal malpractice if there is "indicia of an ongoing, continuous developing, and dependant relationship between the client an attorney" ( Luk Lamellen U. Kupplungbau GmbH v Lerner , 166 AD2d 505, 506 [2d Dept 1990]; see Ainbinder Jacobi , 268 AD2d 494, 494 [2d Dept 2000]), and the continuous representation [is] in connection with the particular transaction which is the subject of the action and not merely during the continuation of a general professional relationship.

2024Stated differently, the continuous representation doctrine tolls the statute of limitations for a claim of legal malpractice if there is "indicia of an ongoing, continuous developing, and dependant relationship between the client an attorney" ( Luk Lamellen U. Kupplungbau GmbH v Lerner , 166 AD2d 505, 506 [2d Dept 1990]; see Ainbinder Jacobi , 268 AD2d 494, 494 [2d Dept 2000]), and the continuous representation [is] in connection with the particular transaction which is the subject of the action and not merely during the continuation of a general professional relationship.

2025"The continuous representation doctrine tolls the statute of limi tat ions . where there is a mutual understanding of the need for further representation on the specific subject underlying the malpractice claim" (Zorn v Gilbert, 8 NY3d 933 , 934 [2007 ] quoting McCoy , 99 NY2d at 306 ).

2021"The continuous representation doctrine tolls the statute of limitations where there is a mutual understanding of the need for further representation on the specific subject matter underlying the malpractice claim" ( Zorn v Gilbert , 8 NY3d at 934 [internal quotation marks, ellipsis and citations omitted]).

2024This doctrine tolls a claim's statute-of-limitation period and applies only "where there is a mutual understanding of the need for further representation on the specific subject matter underlying the malpractice." (Symbol Tech., Inc. v Deloitte & Touche, LLP, [ 69 AD3d 191, 195 [2d Dept 2009] (emphasis added); Williamson v PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, 9 NY3d 1, 10 [2007] [recognizing that where the plaintiffs and defendant were acutely aware of the need for further representation "(i.e., they had a mutual understanding to that effect)" and the plaintiffs were under the impression that defendan

2021The continuous representation doctrine toll does not apply based merely on the existence of an ongoing professional relationship, but only where the particular course of representation giving rise to the particular problems resulting in the alleged malpractice is ongoing ( see Matter of Lawrence , 24 NY3d 320, 341 [2014]; Williamson v PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP , 9 NY3d 1 [2007]).

2024Stated differently, the continuous representation doctrine applies so as to toll the statute of limitations for a claim of legal malpractice if there is "indicia of an ongoing, continuous developing, and dependant relationship between the client an attorney" ( Luk Lamellen U. Kupplungbau GmbH at 506 ; see Ainbinder at 494 and "the continuous representation [is] in connection with the particular transaction which is the subject of the action and not merely during the continuation of a general professional relationship." ( Zaref at 347-348 [internal citations omitted]).

2024Stated differently, the continuous representation doctrine applies so as to toll the statute of limitations for a claim of legal malpractice if there is "indicia of an ongoing, continuous developing, and dependant relationship between the client an attorney" ( Luk Lamellen U. Kupplungbau GmbH at 506 ; see Ainbinder at 494 and "the continuous representation [is] in connection with the particular transaction which is the subject of the action and not merely during the continuation of a general professional relationship." ( Zaref at 347-348 [internal citations omitted]).

2025The continuous representation doctrine does not apply in cases where the professional relationship merely continues with later services that are not related to the original services (see Ackerman v PricewaterhouseCoopers, 252 AD2d 179 [1st Dept 1998]; see also CLP Leasing Co., LP v Nessen, 12 AD3d 226 [1st Dept 2004]).

2024However, under the doctrine of continuous representation, if the attorney continues to represent the client in the underlying action, meaning for the same subject matter alleged to have given rise to the malpractice, the statute of limitations is tolled until such time the representation is terminated ( Glam at 93 ["the plaintiff was not [*12]obligated to commence an action against his attorney during the period in which his attorney continued to represent him in the action to recover for the injuries he sustained at the fire scene."]; CLP Leasing Co., LP v Nessen , 12 AD3d 226, 227 [1st Dept

2014Although defendants correctly contend that the continuous representation doctrine requires that there be “ ‘continuing trust and confidence in the relationship between the parties’ ” (Ranter v Fieri, 11 AD3d 912, 913 [2004]), there are triable issues of fact whether the Town ever lost such trust and confidence in defendants.

2014Although defendants correctly contend that the continuous representation doctrine requires that there be “ ‘continuing trust and confidence in the relationship between the parties’ ” (Ranter v Fieri, 11 AD3d 912, 913 [2004]), there are triable issues of fact whether the Town ever lost such trust and confidence in defendants.

2021"For the continuous representation doctrine to apply to an action sounding in legal malpractice, 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" ( International Electron Devices [USA] LLC v Menter, Rudin & Trivelpiece, P.C. , 71 AD3d at 1512-1513 [internal quotation marks, ellipsis, brackets and citations omitted]; see Leeder v Antonucci , 174 AD3d 1469 , 1471 [2019]; see also Matter of Lawrence , 24 NY3d 320, 342-343 [2014

2021The continuous representation doctrine tolls the limitations period "where there is a mutual understanding of the need for further representation on the specific subject matter underlying the malpractice claim" ( McCoy , 99 NY2d at 306 ), and " 'where the continuing representation pertains specifically to [that] matter' " ( International Electron Devices [USA] LLC v Menter, Rudin & Trivelpiece, P.C. , 71 AD3d 1512, 1513 [4th Dept 2010], quoting Shumsky v Eisenstein , 96 NY2d 164, 168 [2001]).

2024Rafalsky's services do not implicate the "'perform[ace ofj legal services on the [client's] behalf"' (Matter of Lawrence, 24 NY3d at 343 , quoting Greene, 56 NY2d at 95 ) and thus the continuous representation doctrine is inapplicable.

2008“The continuous representation doctrine . . . ‘recognizes that a person seeking professional assistance has a right to repose confidence in the professional’s ability and good faith, and realistically cannot be expected to question and assess the techniques employed or the manner in which the services are rendered’ ” (Shumsky v Eisenstein, 96 NY2d 164, 167 [2001], quoting Greene v Greene, 56 NY2d 86, 94 [1982]).

2024This doctrine tolls a claim's statute-of-limitation period and applies only "where there is a mutual understanding of the need for further representation on the specific subject matter underlying the malpractice." (Symbol Tech., Inc. v Deloitte & Touche, LLP, [ 69 AD3d 191, 195 [2d Dept 2009] (emphasis added); Williamson v PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, 9 NY3d 1, 10 [2007] [recognizing that where the plaintiffs and defendant were acutely aware of the need for further representation "(i.e., they had a mutual understanding to that effect)" and the plaintiffs were under the impression that defendan

2016Plaintiff raised a question of fact as to whether the statute of limitations with regards to these transactions was tolled by the doctrine of continuous representation (see Schwartz v Leaf, Salzman, Manganelli, Pfiel & Tendler, LLP, 123 AD3d 901 [2014]; Howish v Perrotta, 84 AD3d 1312 [2011]; Symbol Tech., Inc. v Deloitte & Touche, LLP, 69 AD3d 191, 196 [2009]; Rehberger v Garguilo & Orzechowski, LLP, 50 AD3d 760 [2008]).

2013The 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 the attor

2012All 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]).

2024Zimmerman Architects & Engineers DPC (HLZAE), the company of which Zimmerman was a principal, were related to the services provided under the original agreement between plaintiff and HLZAE — a necessary circumstance for application of the continuous representation doctrine ( see Booth v Kriegel , 36 AD3d 312, 314 [1st Dept 2006]; see also Pace v Horowitz , 190 AD3d 619, 619 [1st Dept 2021]).

2024Zimmerman Architects & Engineers DPC (HLZAE), the company of which Zimmerman was a principal, were related to the services provided under the original agreement between plaintiff and HLZAE — a necessary circumstance for application of the continuous representation doctrine ( see Booth v Kriegel , 36 AD3d 312, 314 [1st Dept 2006]; see also Pace v Horowitz , 190 AD3d 619 , 619 [1st Dept 2021]).

2016Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, he failed to raise a question of fact as to whether the continuous representation doctrine tolled the running of the statute of limitations (see Landow v Snow Becker Krauss, P.C., 111 AD3d at 797 ; Bullfrog, LLC v Nolan, 102 AD3d at 720 ; Hasty Hills Stables, Inc. v Dorfman, Lynch, Knoebel & Conway, LLP, 52 AD3d 566, 567-568 [2008]).

2016Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, he failed to raise a question of fact as to whether the continuous representation doctrine tolled the running of the statute of limitations (see Landow v Snow Becker Krauss, P.C., 111 AD3d at 797 ; Bullfrog, LLC v Nolan, 102 AD3d at 720 ; Hasty Hills Stables, Inc. v Dorfman, Lynch, Knoebel & Conway, LLP, 52 AD3d 566, 567-568 [2008]).

2020In opposition, however, the plaintiff raised a question of fact as to whether the statute of limitations was tolled by the doctrine of continuous representation ( see Kitty Jie Yuan v 2368 W. 12th St., LLC , 119 AD3d 674, 674 ; Macaluso v Del Col , 95 AD3d at 960 ; Kennedy v H.

2015In opposition, however, the plaintiff raised a question of fact as to whether the applicable statute of limitations was tolled by the doctrine of continuous representation (see Kitty Jie Yuan v 2368 W. 12th St., LLC, 119 AD3d at 674-675 ; Bill Kolb, Jr., Subaru, Inc. v LJ Rabinowitz, CPA, 117 AD3d 978 , 980 [2014]; Macaluso v Del Col, 95 AD3d 959, 960-961 [2012]).

2013Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff in opposition was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the continuous representation doctrine tolled the running of the statute of limitations (see Hasty Hills Stables, Inc. v Dorfman, Lynch, Knoebel & Conway, LLP, 52 AD3d 566, 567-568 [2008]; Melendez v Bernstein, 29 AD3d 872, 873 [2006]; Dignelli v Berman, 293 AD2d 565, 566 [2002]; Muller v Sturman, 79 AD2d 482, 486-487 [1981]).

2013Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff in opposition was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the continuous representation doctrine tolled the running of the statute of limitations (see Hasty Hills Stables, Inc. v Dorfman, Lynch, Knoebel & Conway, LLP, 52 AD3d 566, 567-568 [2008]; Melendez v Bernstein, 29 AD3d 872, 873 [2006]; Dignelli v Berman, 293 AD2d 565, 566 [2002]; Muller v Sturman, 79 AD2d 482, 486-487 [1981]).

2013Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff in opposition was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the continuous representation doctrine tolled the running of the statute of limitations (see Hasty Hills Stables, Inc. v Dorfman, Lynch, Knoebel & Conway, LLP, 52 AD3d 566, 567-568 [2008]; Melendez v Bernstein, 29 AD3d 872, 873 [2006]; Dignelli v Berman, 293 AD2d 565, 566 [2002]; Muller v Sturman, 79 AD2d 482, 486-487 [1981]).

2013Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff in opposition was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the continuous representation doctrine tolled the running of the statute of limitations (see Hasty Hills Stables, Inc. v Dorfman, Lynch, Knoebel & Conway, LLP, 52 AD3d 566, 567-568 [2008]; Melendez v Bernstein, 29 AD3d 872, 873 [2006]; Dignelli v Berman, 293 AD2d 565, 566 [2002]; Muller v Sturman, 79 AD2d 482, 486-487 [1981]).

2025Moreover, the statute of limitations was not tolled by the continuous representation doctrine, which does not apply to "a dispute between an attorney and his client over a financial transaction," but [*2]rather, applies to "an attorney's alleged malfeasance in the provision of professional services on his client's behalf" ( Matter of Lawrence , 24 NY3d 320, 342, 345 [2014]).

2024NO. 89 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024 contested matter or transaction." (Matter of Lawrence, 24 NY3d 320,341 [2014] [citations omitted], rearg denied 24 NY3d 1215 [2015].) Importantly, there must be "a mutual understanding of the need for further representation on the specific subject matter underlying the ... claim." (McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295, 306 [2002].) Here, plaintiffs fail to raise an issue of fact that the continuous representation doctrine applies.

2013The 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 the attor

2012All 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]).

2024Pursuant to the doctrine of continuous representation, the statute of limitations is tolled for the period following the alleged malpractice until the attorney's ongoing representation of the client on the particular matter is completed ( see Grace v Law , 24 NY3d 203, 212 ; Shumsky v Eisenstein , 96 NY2d 164, 167-168 ; Farage v Ehrenberg , 124 AD3d 159, 164 ).

2018However, legal malpractice claims which would otherwise be barred by the statute of limitations are timely if the doctrine of continuous representation applies ( see Glamm v Allen , 57 NY2d 87, 91-94 ; Alizio v Ruskin Moscou Faltischek, P.C. , 126 AD3d 733, 735 ; Farage v Ehrenberg , 124 AD3d at 164 ), in which case the three-year statute of limitations is tolled for the period following the alleged malpractice "until the attorney's continuing representation of the client on a particular matter is completed" ( Farage v Ehrenberg , 124 AD3d at 164 ; see Zorn v Gilbert , 8 NY3d 933, 934 ; Glamm

2025The continuous representation doctrine does not apply in cases where the professional relationship merely continues with later services that are not related to the original services (see Ackerman v PricewaterhouseCoopers, 252 AD2d 179 [1st Dept 1998]; see also CLP Leasing Co., LP v Nessen, 12 AD3d 226 [1st Dept 2004]).

2025However, the continuous representation doctrine has been found to toll a statute of limitations where defendant undertook to defend or explain earlier advice they had provided or where the defendant represented plaintiffs in audited investigations by the IRS (see Ackerman, 252 AD2d 179 [holding defendants' repeated use of an improper accounting method, repeated failure to disclose risks associated with it, and representations that it was handling an IRS audit in relation was enough evidence to support the application of continuous representation]; see also Lemle, 165 AD3d 414 [holding continuo

2017“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” (Aqua-Trol Corp. v Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, P.A., 144 AD3d at 957 ; see Shumsky v Eisenstein, 96 NY2d at 164 ; Pellati v Lite & Lite, 290 AD2d 544, 545 [2002]).

2017For 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” (Luk Lamellen U. Kupplungbau GmbH v Lerner, 166 AD2d 505, 506-507 [1990]; see Pellati v Lite & Lite, 290 AD2d at 545 ).

2026Representation is continuous when there is "clear indicia of an ongoing, continuous, developing, and dependent relationship between the client and the attorney" ( Farage v Ehrenberg , 124 AD3d 159, 164 [2d Dept 2014], lv denied 25 NY3d 906 [2015]), or "a mutual understanding of the need for further representation on the specific subject matter underlying the malpractice claim" ( Matter of Merker , 18 AD3d 332, 333 [1st Dept 2005]).

2016Plaintiff failed to make any showing that the statutes of limitations applicable to her claims against defendants Got-tlieb, Rackman & Reisman and Maria Savio were tolled by the continuous representation doctrine (see Matter of Merker, 18 AD3d 332 [1st Dept 2005]).

2018"A cause of action [alleging] legal malpractice accrues when the malpractice is committed, not when it is discovered" ( Town of Wallkill v Rosenstein, 40 AD3d 972, 973 ; see Roubeni v Dechert, LLP , 159 AD3d 934 , 935). " However, pursuant to the doctrine of continuous representation, the time within which to sue on the [cause of action] is tolled until the attorney's continuing representation of the client with regard to the particular matter terminates'" ( Stein Indus., Inc. v Certilman Balin Adler & Hyman, LLP, 149 AD3d at 789, quoting Aqua-Trol Corp. v Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, P.A., 144

2018"A cause of action for legal malpractice accrues when the malpractice is committed, not when it is discovered" ( Town of Wallkill v Rosenstein, 40 AD3d 972, 973 ). " 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'" ( Stein Indus., Inc. v Certilman Balin Adler & Hyman, LLP, 149 AD3d at 789, quoting Aqua-Trol Corp. v Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, P.A., 144 [*2]AD3d 956, 957).

2026Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, she failed to establish that the defendant was engaged in efforts to rectify his mistake in drafting the trust so as to raise a question of fact as to the applicability of the continuous representation doctrine ( cf. DeStaso v Condon Resnick, LLP , 90 AD3d 809, 813 ).

2026Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, she failed to establish that the defendant was engaged in efforts to rectify his mistake in drafting the trust so as to raise a question of fact as to the applicability of the continuous representation doctrine ( cf. DeStaso v Condon Resnick, LLP , 90 AD3d 809, 813).