Tuesday, January 27, 2009
A legal malpractice suit against Dechert LLP was dismissed on grounds of statute of limitations. The plaintiff's appeal of that determination was rejected by the New York Appellate Division for the First Judicial Department, which also affirmed financial sanctions imposed on plaintiff's counsel:
Plaintiffs' legal malpractice claim is barred by the statute of limitations (CPLR 214), which began to run in January 2000, when the merger of the corporate plaintiffs was completed and defendant law firm filed the merger documents. Even assuming plaintiffs could sustain their allegations that defendant represented them with respect to the merger, the complaint would have to be dismissed because their claim of continued representation is without merit (see West Vil. Assoc. Ltd. Partnership v Balber Pickard Battistoni Maldonado & Ver Dan Tuin, PC, 49 AD3d 270, 270 ). [*2]
The court properly imposed sanctions on plaintiff's counsel for frivolous conduct (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1[a], [c]).