| Howish v Perrotta |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 04631 [84 AD3d 1312] |
| May 31, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| John Howish, Respondent, v Peter J. Perrotta et al.,Defendants, and Ronald M. Organ, Appellant. |
—[*1] Lo Turco & Martin, Huntington, N.Y. (Bradford J. Martin of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for legal malpractice, the defendant Ronald M.Organ appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, SuffolkCounty (Gazzillo, J.), entered August 6, 2009, as denied that branch of his motion which waspursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him astime-barred.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the appellant's motion which waspursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him astime-barred. Although the appellant met his prima facie burden of establishing that the complaintwas time-barred insofar as asserted against him, in opposition, the plaintiff raised a question offact as to whether the statute of limitations was tolled by the continuous representation doctrine(see Kennedy v H. Bruce Fischer, Esq., P.C., 78 AD3d 1016, 1017-1018 [2010];Lytell v Lorusso, 74 AD3d 905, 907 [2010]; Symbol Tech., Inc. v Deloitte & Touche,LLP, 69 AD3d 191, 195-196 [2009]; Rehberger v Garguilo & Orzechowski, LLP, 50AD3d 760 [2008]). Mastro, J.P., Dickerson, Chambers and Roman, JJ., concur.