New York Office
16 Court Street, 28th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11241
Phone: (718) COURT • ST or
(718) 643-6063
Richard Klass, Esq. attorney at law, "Your Court Street Lawyer," litigation, real estate, property, Brooklyn, New York
Richard A. Klass, Esq.
Richard A. Klass


Attorneys and Staff


Our Newsletter: LawCURRENTST


Blog: Legal Malpractice

Articles by R. A. Klass

Videos by R. A. Klass

Presentations and Courses

On-line Public Resources

The Harsh Rule of the Statute of Limitations in Legal Malpractice Cases

Creative Commons License
License information

By Richard Klass, Esq.
"Your Court Street Lawyer"


The term “statute of limitations” refers to the period of time in which a plaintiff may bring a lawsuit against a defendant for a claim. Different types of cases are governed by different statute of limitations period (for instance, six years for contract actions in New York, three years for tort actions in New York). The effect of the statute of limitations is that a plaintiff bringing a lawsuit after that period of time has expired is barred from bringing it, and the lawsuit will be dismissed as untimely.

In New York, the statute of limitations for legal malpractice cases is three years from the date of malpractice. This means that a plaintiff-client bringing a lawsuit for legal malpractice against a defendant-attorney must file the lawsuit within three years of the date of legal malpractice by the defendant-attorney; if not, then the lawsuit may be dismissed as untimely. There are some “tolls” of the statute of limitations, which may extend the period of time in which a lawsuit may be filed (e.g. continued representation of the client by the attorney post-malpractice).

In a case decided by New York’s Appellate Division, Second Department, Frost Line Refrigeration, Inc. v. Gastwirth, Mirsky & Stein LLP, 806 NYS2d 436 (2006), the court held that the three-year statute of limitations period for the legal malpractice case started running from the date that the plaintiff-client signed a Consent to Change Attorney form with the defendant-client. By signing that form (which indicates that a client no longer wants the attorney to act as its counsel), the attorney-client relationship terminated and the clock began ticking on the potential legal malpractice claim. As the lawsuit was filed after the three-year period, the plaintiff-client was time-barred from commencing the legal malpractice case and it was dismissed.

Therefore, it is very important to be vigilant in pursuing all potential legal remedies as soon as possible in order to preserve any rights, including the right to file a legal malpractice case; otherwise, it may be too late to file a legal malpractice case.


[Updated, September 2014]

Statute of Limitations for Legal Malpractice Action

CPLR 214(6) provides that “an action to recover damages for malpractice, other than medical, dental or podiatric malpractice, regardless of whether the underlying theory is based in contract or tort” must be commenced within 3 years.

The cause of action for malpractice accrues at the time of the act, error or omission. See, Julian v. Carrol, 270 AD2d 457 [2d Dept. 2000]; Goicoechea v. Law Offices of Stephen Kihl, 234 AD2d 507 [2d Dept. 1996]; Shumsky v. Eisenstein, 96 NY2d 164 [2001].

The Court of Appeals has held that a cause of action for legal malpractice accrues against the attorney when the statute of limitations expires on the underlying action for which the attorney was retained. See, Shumsky v. Eisenstein, supra. In Burgess v. Long Island Railroad Authority, 79 NY2d 777 [1991], the Court of Appeals held:

The Continuous Representation Toll of a Legal Malpractice Action

The accrual of the three-year statute of limitations is tolled during the period of the lawyer’s continuous representation in the same matter out of which the malpractice arose under the theory that the client should not be expected to question the lawyer’s advice while he is still representing the client. See, Lamellen v. Kupplungbau GmbH v. Lerner, 166 AD2d 505 [2d Dept. 1990]; Shumsky v. Eisenstein, supra. Under the continuous representation doctrine, there must be clear indicia of an ongoing, continuous, developing, and dependent relationship between the client and the lawyer. See, Kanter v. Pieri, 11 AD3d 912 [4 Dept. 2004]; Lamellen v. Kupplungbau GmbH v. Lerner, supra; Clark v. Jacobsen, 202 AD2d 466 [2 Dept. 1994].

Copyright 2006
Richard A. Klass, Esq.


License Information

Creative Commons License
The Harsh Rule of the Statute of Limitations in Legal Malpractice Cases by Richard A. Klass, Esq. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. For permissions beyond the scope of this license, please contact Mr. Klass (email: Insert the words "reprint permission request" in the subject line of the email.


Publishing Guidelines

Permission is granted to publish this article electronically in free-only publications, like a website or ezine (print and non-free publications require permission) as long as the resource box is included without any modifications. All links must be active. A courtesy copy is requested on publication (email:

Article Title:
The Harsh Rule of the Statute of Limitations in Legal Malpractice Cases

Article URL:

Author Name:
Richard A. Klass, Esq.

Contact Email Address:

Author's Firm's Website:

Word Count:
617 words

[This resource box must be included in any publications.]

* * *

Resource Box

About the Author:
Richard A. Klass, Esq. maintains a law firm engaged in civil litigation at 16 Court Street, 28th Floor, Brooklyn Heights, New York. He may be reached by phone at (718) COURT-ST [(718) 268-7878)] or with any questions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Read the original article in context at:

Additional articles by Mr. Klass may be found at:
Back issues from Mr. Klass' quarterly newsletter, Law CURRENTS are available at
Articles from Law CURRENTS may be available for reprint. Please see individual articles for license information.

* * *


Website copyr. 1999-2015 Richard A. Klass.
Website marketing: The Innovation Works, Inc.

Attorney Advertising