Opinion
April 22, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Lobis, J.).
There is no merit to plaintiff's argument that the Statute of Limitations was tolled because of defendants' continuous representation. Leaving aside the question of standing arising from whether defendants represented plaintiff or a decedent whose estate is not a party, more must be pleaded than occasional, general representation (see, Olkowski v City of New York, 179 A.D.2d 570, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 755), that is "distinct and unrelated" (Brocco v Westchester Radiological Assocs., 175 A.D.2d 903, 904) to "discrete and completed" work (Jones v Peacock, 183 A.D.2d 1039, 1041). Here, there is not even the most conclusory allegation of continuous representation regarding the decedent's last will and testament.
We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them to be either without merit or irrelevant in view of the dispositive effect of the Statute of Limitations.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Carro, Rosenberger, Ross and Kassal, JJ.