Legal Malpractice

It's a 3 year Statute of Limitations in Legal Malpractice

By (Andrew Lavoott Bluestone)

No matter how you phrase it, it's a 3 year statute under CPLR 214(6).  Attorneys try to phrase it as contract, or breach of fiduciary duty, or misrepresentation, but so long as the wrong arises from a professional relationship between client and attorney its a 3 year statute.  In Matter of R.M. Kliment & Frances Halsband, Architects (McKinsey & Co., Inc.) ;2004 NY Slip Op 09319 [3 NY3d 538] December 16, 2004 Ciparick, J. Court of Appeals  we see:
 

"CPLR 214 (6) states 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" is subject to a three-year statute of limitations. The Legislature specifically amended this statute in 1996 to counteract the effect of decisions by this Court that "abrogat[ed] and circumvent[ed] the original legislative intent" by allowing actions that were technically malpractice actions to proceed under a six-year contract statute of limitations (Revised Assembly Mem in Support, Bill Jacket, L 1996, ch 623).

Prior to the 1996 amendment, we determined the appropriate statute of limitations in nonmedical malpractice actions based upon the proposed remedy instead of the theory of liability (see e.g. Santulli v Englert, Reilly & McHugh, P.C., 78 NY2d 700, 708 [1992]; Sears, Roebuck & Co. v Enco Assoc., Inc., 43 NY2d 389, 394-395 [1977]). These cases held that liability would not have existed between the parties without the contractual relationship and that there was an implied agreement to perform professional services using due care (see Santulli, 78 NY2d at 707; Sears, 43 NY2d at 396). Parties were permitted to maintain a malpractice action under a breach of contract theory within the six-year statute of limitations, but were limited to damages available in a contract action if the three-year malpractice limitations period had expired (see Santulli, 78 NY2d at 709).

It is the effect of these decisions that the amendment to CPLR 214 (6) was intended to change. The legislative history makes clear that "where the underlying complaint is one which essentially claims that there was a failure to utilize reasonable care or where acts of omission or negligence are alleged or claimed, {**3 NY3d at 542}the statute of limitations shall be three years if the case comes within the purview of CPLR Section 214 (6), regardless of whether the theory is based in tort or in a breach of contract" (Revised Assembly Mem in Support, Bill Jacket, L 1996, ch 623). [*4]"

Full post as published by New York Attorney Malpractice Blog on July 24, 2009 (boomark / email).