Opinion
June 19, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.).
Issues of fact preclude summary determination of defendants' Statute of Limitations and res judicata defenses. However, we do find that this action should be stayed pending defendants' Connecticut action for, inter alia, fees, commenced almost a year before this action and which defendants represent is scheduled for an imminent trial. Plaintiffs' answer in the Connecticut action asserts the defense of lack of consideration, but not malpractice, because, they assert, it is not clear that their malpractice claims would be timely in Connecticut; however, it does appear that the continuous representation doctrine has been recognized in Connecticut ( see, S.M.S. Textile Mills v. Brown, Jacobson, Tillinghast, Lahan King, 32 Conn. App. 786, 793, 631 A.2d 340, 344, certification denied 228 Conn. 903, 634 A.2d 296). Plaintiffs' argument that not all the parties to both actions are identical is unpersuasive, since it is clear that the defendants named in the Connecticut action, particularly Dr. Hill, have the legal capacity to act on behalf of all the patent owners named as plaintiffs in this action.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Williams and Colabella, JJ.