The statute of limitations in legal malpractice cases can be tolled when there has been continuous representation of the client by the attorney. However, it is applicable only to the particular matter in which malpractice is claimed.
See, Davis v Cohen & Gresser, LLP, 160 AD3d 484, 486 [1st Dept 2018], in which the court held:
“ the continuous representation doctrine does not apply where there is only a vague “ ongoing representation ” (Johnson v. Proskauer Rose LLP, 129 A.D.3d 59, 68, 9 N.Y.S.3d 201 [1st Dept. 2015] ). For the doctrine to apply, the representation must be specifically related to the subject matter underlying the malpractice claim, and there must be a mutual understanding of need for further services in connection with that same subject matter (see Shumsky, 96 N.Y.2d at 168, 726 N.Y.S.2d 365, 750 N.E.2d 67; see also CLP Leasing, 12 A.D.3d at 227, 784 N.Y.S.2d 535). ”
