A state appeals court has dismissed a legal malpractice action on statute of limitations grounds, rejecting an argument that the limitations period had been tolled under New York’s continuous representation doctrine because of an outstanding counterclaim and the lawyers’ failure to ask the court to be relieved as counsel.

“Contrary to plaintiff’s contentions, the outstanding counterclaim in the employment action and [the lawyer] defendants’ failure to move to be relieved in that action did not show a mutual understanding of a need for further representation,” wrote the Appellate Division, First Department court while citing the New York Court of Appeals decision in McCoy v. Feinman.