Zorn v. Gilbert
| Decision Date | 03 April 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 86 SSM 6.,86 SSM 6. |
| Parties | Carol W. ZORN, Appellant, v. Rita K. GILBERT et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division should be modified, without costs, by reinstating the legal malpractice cause of action and remitting to Supreme Court for consideration of issues raised by defendants on the motion to dismiss but not reached by that court and, as so modified, affirmed.
Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint alleging, in part, that plaintiff's legal malpractice cause of action was barred by the statute of limitations. An action to recover damages arising from legal malpractice must be commenced within three years after accrual (see CPLR 214[6]; 203[a]). "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" (McCoy v. Feinman, 99 N.Y.2d 295, 306, 755 N.Y.S.2d 693, 785 N.E.2d 714 [2002]; see also Shumsky v. Eisenstein, 96 N.Y.2d 164, 167-168, 726 N.Y.S.2d 365, 750 N.E.2d 67 [2001]). Plaintiff's cause of action accrued, at the latest, on December 4, 1997, when a judgment of divorce was entered in the underlying action (see McCoy, 99 N.Y.2d at 305, 755 N.Y.S.2d 693, 785 N.E.2d 714). Defendants' representation of plaintiff in the underlying action ended, at the earliest, in June 1998. Inasmuch as this action was commenced in May 2001, the Appellate Division erred in holding that plaintiff's cause of action alleging legal malpractice was time-barred (see McCoy, 99 N.Y.2d at 305, 755 N.Y.S.2d 693, 785 N.E.2d 714; Shumsky, 96 N.Y.2d at 167-168, 726 N.Y.S.2d 365, 750 N.E.2d 67). Issues regarding plaintiff's other causes of action, decided by the courts below, are not raised before us.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order modified, without costs, by reinstating the legal malpractice cause of action and remitting to Supreme Court, Westchester County, for further proceedings in accordance with the memorandum herein and, as so modified, affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Farage v. Ehrenberg
...for legal malpractice must be commenced within three years from the accrual of the claim (see CPLR 214[6] ; Zorn v. Gilbert, 8 N.Y.3d 933, 934, 834 N.Y.S.2d 702, 866 N.E.2d 1030 ; McCoy v. Feinman, 99 N.Y.2d 295, 301, 755 N.Y.S.2d 693, 785 N.E.2d 714 ; Weiss v. Manfredi, 83 N.Y.2d 974, 977,......
-
Lavelle-Tomko v. Aswad & Ingraham
...to recover damages arising from legal malpractice must be commenced within three years after accrual" ( Zorn v. Gilbert, 8 N.Y.3d 933, 933–934, 834 N.Y.S.2d 702, 866 N.E.2d 1030 [2007] [citation omitted]; see CPLR 214[6] ), which occurs at the time of the injury and not at the time that the......
-
Webster v. Sherman
...client on a particular matter is completed" ( Farage v. Ehrenberg, 124 A.D.3d at 164, 996 N.Y.S.2d 646 ; see Zorn v. Gilbert, 8 N.Y.3d 933, 934, 834 N.Y.S.2d 702, 866 N.E.2d 1030 ; Glamm v. Allen, 57 N.Y.2d at 93, 453 N.Y.S.2d 674, 439 N.E.2d 390 ). For the doctrine of continuous representa......
-
RA Global Servs., Inc. v. Avicenna Overseas Corp.
...New York law, the corresponding statute of limitations is three years. N.Y. C.P.L.R. 214(6); see also Zorn v. Gilbert, 8 N.Y.3d 933, 934, 866 N.E.2d 1030, 1031, 834 N.Y.S.2d 702 (2007). Texas law provides the shorter statute of limitations; thus, the malpractice claim must be timely under T......