David Shumsky, Appellants v. Paul Eisenstein, Respondent

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division and denied the attorney's summary‑judgment motion, holding that the continuous representation doctrine tolled the statute of limitations for the plaintiffs' legal‑malpractice claim. The Court applied the 1996 amendment to CPLR 214(6) and found the claim timely because the attorney’s representation of the specific matter continued until at least October 1996.