WEST VILLAGE ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP v. BALBER PICKARD BATTISTONI MALDONADO VER DAN TUIN PC (2008)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered January 18, 2007, which granted defendants' pre-answer motion to dismiss the amended complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, the claims for legal malpractice reinstated, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

 A legal malpractice claim accrues when the malpractice is committed (Glamm v. Allen, 57 N.Y.2d 87, 93, 453 N.Y.S.2d 674, 439 N.E.2d 390 [1982] ), not when the client discovers it.   Under the “continuous representation” doctrine, however, a client cannot reasonably be expected to assess the quality of the professional service while it is still in progress (see Greene v. Greene, 56 N.Y.2d 86, 94-95, 451 N.Y.S.2d 46, 436 N.E.2d 496 [1982] ).   The doctrine is “generally limited to the course of representation concerning a specific legal matter,” and thus is “not applicable to a client's ․ continuing general relationship with a lawyer ․ involving only routine contact for miscellaneous legal representation ․ unrelated to the matter upon which the allegations of malpractice are predicated” (Shumsky v. Eisenstein, 96 N.Y.2d 164, 168, 726 N.Y.S.2d 365, 750 N.E.2d 67 [2001] ).   The pleading must assert more than simply an extended general relationship between the professional and client, and the facts are required to demonstrate continued representation in the specific matter directly under dispute.

 The complaint here went beyond mere allegations that defendants continuously represented plaintiffs in a general professional relationship after the specific act of malpractice occurred (cf. Zaref v. Berk & Michaels, 192 A.D.2d 346, 348, 595 N.Y.S.2d 772 [1993] ), specifically alleging the continued advice they received from defendants regarding rent regulation, as a result of which they failed to take appropriate steps to assure the subject property would be free from rent regulation.   As a result, plaintiffs stated a cause of action that was not barred by the statute of limitations (see Greene, 56 N.Y.2d at 95, 451 N.Y.S.2d 46, 436 N.E.2d 496).

Finally, plaintiffs sufficiently alleged bases for liability against the individual defendants under Business Corporation Law § 1505(a) (cf. Ecker v. Zwaik & Bernstein, 240 A.D.2d 360, 361-362, 658 N.Y.S.2d 113 [1997] ).

We have reviewed plaintiffs' other contentions and find them without merit.