This piece summarizes civil procedure decisions handed down by the New York Court of Appeals during its 2014-2015 term. Given our space limitations, we have addressed only a portion of the Court's holdings in this arena, with an emphasis on those decisions that are most relevant to everyday practice in The Empire State. Readers searching for a discussion of the other relevant opinions from the Court during the 2014-2015 term will want to review the biannual supplements to Siegel, New York Practice (Thomson, Connors ed., July 2015 Supplement; January 2016 Supplement [forthcoming]).

Continuous Representation Toll

The statute of limitations was once again busy destroying the hopes of plaintiffs and realizing the dreams of defendants during the past year. Several Court of Appeals decisions grappled with statute of limitations issues, including two opinions addressing the continuous representation doctrine in actions alleging legal malpractice and attorney misconduct.

Claims alleging legal malpractice, which would otherwise be barred by the statute of limitations, are sometimes saved by the doctrine of continuous representation. See Siegel, New York Practice §42. In Grace v. Law, 24 N.Y.3d 203 (2014), a law firm withdrew from representing the plaintiff in a medical malpractice action against the Veterans Administration in federal court after discovering it had a conflict of interest. Following this withdrawal, a law firm that previously represented the plaintiff in an administrative proceeding against the Veterans Administration took over the prosecution of the federal action. The exact date of the transfer of the representation was not clear, but on Dec. 8, 2008, an order was signed by the federal district court directing the substitution of counsel.