Opinion
2416N.
Decided December 9, 2003.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Tolub, J.), entered September 25, 2002, which, in an action to recover a legal fee, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant's motion to amend its answer so as to assert, inter alia, counterclaims for legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Sarah S. Gold, for Plaintiff-Respondent.
Yongjun Charles Fu, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Rosenberger, J.P., Lerner, Friedman, Marlow, JJ.
The proposed counterclaims for legal malpractice were correctly rejected as time-barred since defendant moved to amend more than three years after the alleged acts of malpractice (CPLR 214; see McCoy v. Feinman, 99 N.Y.2d 295, 301). Supreme Court correctly rejected defendant's allegations of breach of fiduciary duty as duplicative of the malpractice claim. We have considered and rejected defendant's arguments that the relation-back and continuous representation doctrines save this action.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.