Professional Negligence Law Reporter

A New York appellate court held that the estate of an architect may be liable to a property owner with whom the architect worked on and off for more than ten years.

In 2005, property owner Douglas Anderson retained architect Thomas Barrett Stanley to construct a four-story condominium building adjacent to an existing building that Anderson owned. In 2008, Anderson discovered that the property needed to be subdivided in order for utilities to be installed separately in the two buildings. Additionally, that year, Anderson lost his funding for the project. Several years later, in 2015 and 2018, Anderson and Stanley entered into new contracts for architectural services, and work on the condominium project resumed. The New York City buildings department issued objections against the project, however, and Stanley did not complete the project before his death in June 2018.

Anderson sued Stanley’s estate in 2018, alleging breach of contract and professional malpractice, among other claims. The defense moved to dismiss, and the trial court granted the motion.

The appellate court found that an action to recover damages for malpractice, other than medical, dental, or podiatric malpractice, is subject to a three-year limitations statute. Moreover, the court said, a professional malpractice claim against an architect or engineer may be tolled under the continuous representation doctrine where the plaintiff shows reliance on a continued course of services related to the original services provided by the professionals. Applying these principles here, the court declined to find that the plaintiff’s claims accrued in 2008. Although the project stalled, the court said, the work was resumed once additional financing was obtained, and Stanley continued to revise plans and meet with the plaintiff. The original and subsequent contracts between the parties also concerned a single project, the court said, finding that the limitations period did not begin to run until completion of the entire project. Thus, the court concluded that the trial court had erred in dismissing the plaintiff’s malpractice and breach of contract claims as time-barred.

The court held, however, that the plaintiff’s malpractice cause of action was duplicative of his breach of contract claim, reasoning that the allegations and injuries in both claims were essentially identical. Consequently, the court held that dismissal of the plaintiff’s malpractice cause of action had been warranted.

Citation: Anderson v. Pinn, 185 A.D.3d 534 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020).

Plaintiff counsel: Jesse C. Cotter and Scott B. MacLagan, Manhasset, N.Y.