Justice Thomas Feinman

Law firm Kroll Moss and Kroll LLP (KMK) moved for dismissal of ex-client Louzon’s complaint in this action to recover damages for legal malpractice. Louzon retained KMK in an underlying matrimonial action. The action was partially settled, but Louzon, an attorney, sought to pick up all exhibits to work on an appeal. KMK notified Louzon to pay her outstanding bill before the file would be released. KMK and Louzon executed a consent to change attorney on Aug. 19, 2008, and Louzon filed this malpractice suit on Aug. 9, 2011, seeking damages for malpractice associated with KMK’s representation of her in the matrimonial suit. KMK asserted its representation of Louzon terminated on Aug. 7, 2008, when she sent an email stating same. Louzon claimed KMK was discharged on Aug. 19, 2008, the date the consent to change attorney was signed, thus, the action was timely. The court agreed, finding KMK failed to sustain their burden of showing the action was not commenced within the statutory three year period. It ruled KMK’s own submissions raised an issue of fact if the continuous representation doctrine tolled the statute of limitations to Aug. 19, 2008, finding KMK’s submissions did not conclusively dispose of Louzon’s claims. Thus, dismissal was denied.