RJR v. Harold J. Ruvoldt, et al., Defendants–Respondents. (2019)

_

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey K. Oing, J.), entered on or about June 14, 2017, which granted defendants' CPLR 3211(a) motion to dismiss the complaint on statute of limitations grounds, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The statute of limitations on a cause of action for legal malpractice is three years (see CPLR 214[6] ).  Contrary to plaintiff's assertions, the claim was not tolled by the continuous representation doctrine.  Generally, tolling under the continuous representation doctrine “end[s] once the client is informed or otherwise put on notice of the attorney's withdrawal from representation” (Shumsky v. Eisenstein, 96 N.Y.2d 164, 171 [2001] ).

Moreover, there was not 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 [2002] ).

Finally, the cause of action for unjust enrichment is redundant of the legal malpractice claim, since they arise from the same allegations and seek identical relief (see Estate of Nevelson v Carro, Spanbock, Kaster & Cuiffo, 290 A.D.2d 399 [1st Dept 2002];  see also Weksler v. Kane Kessler, P.C., 63 AD3d 529 [1st Dept 2009] ).

_

CLERK