Ray-Roseman v. Lippes Mathias Wexler Friedman, LLP
Docket: 531 CA 20-01473
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; August 26, 2021; New York; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
In Ray-Roseman v. Lippes Mathias Wexler Friedman, LLP, decided on August 26, 2021, the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court reversed a lower court's order that had granted defendants' motion to dismiss a legal malpractice claim related to a 2014 loan transaction. The plaintiffs, including Deborah Ann Ray-Roseman as the personal representative of Ronald L. Roseman's estate, alleged legal malpractice stemming from the defendants' representation in a business loan transaction and subsequent foreclosure litigation. The defendants argued that the claim was time-barred due to the three-year statute of limitations for legal malpractice claims under CPLR 214 (6). The court acknowledged that while the defendants met their initial burden in proving the claim was filed after the statute of limitations, the onus then shifted to the plaintiffs to demonstrate a triable issue of fact regarding whether the statute of limitations could be tolled or if the action was timely commenced. As a result, the court denied the defendants' motion concerning the legal malpractice claim related to the 2014 loan transaction and reinstated that claim. Plaintiffs have established a triable issue of fact regarding the applicability of the continuous representation doctrine to toll the statute of limitations on their malpractice claim related to a 2014 loan transaction. This doctrine applies when there is a mutual understanding for further representation on the specific matter underlying the claim. The plaintiffs presented communications from a Florida attorney indicating that the defendants, as New York counsel, were responsible for the 'enforcement' of the 2014 loan documents. Additionally, the timeline of the 2014 loan transaction and subsequent foreclosure proceedings suggests continuous representation, supported by supplemental billing invoices showing uninterrupted legal services. Consequently, factual questions remain about the extent of defendants' representation and whether the 'enforcement' of the loan documents implied ongoing representation until the loan was fully paid and the transaction completed. The court determined it need not address the plaintiffs' other arguments.