A state appeals court on Tuesday rejected a Manhattan boutique’s attempt to dismiss a malpractice action against it, finding that questions remain as to whether the statute of limitations for the claim was tolled and if the firm received sufficient notice about a bankruptcy that prevented its client from collecting a judgment.

Examining the plaintiff’s argument that New York’s three-year statute of limitation to bring a malpractice suit against The Law Offices of Neal Brickman was tolled under the continuous representation doctrine, a five-judge panel from the Appellate Division, First Department wrote that various “factual contentions” have to resolved during discovery—not at the pre-answer motion-to-dismiss stage.