Link Motion Inc. v. DLA Piper LLP (US)

2026 NY Slip Op 02066 · Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, First Department · April 7, 2026 · No. Index No. 653322/22; Appeal Nos. 6295-6296-6297; Case Nos. 2025-01716, 2025-01979, 2025-04103

Summary

The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed a judgment awarding DLA Piper LLP (US) $482,390.56 in sanctions and attorneys' fees against Link Motion Inc. and nonparty appellants. The court held that Link Motion's legal-malpractice claim was untimely because DLA's representation had ended when Link Motion stated it could not pay, and that the claim also failed to state a cause of action. The court further upheld sanctions under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 and the amount of attorneys' fees determined after a fee hearing.

Holdings

  1. The continuous-representation toll ended when Link Motion was informed or put on notice that DLA Piper had withdrawn from the representation, which occurred on January 21, 2019. Without the toll, the malpractice claim was untimely, even assuming the COVID toll applied.
  2. The action was properly dismissed for failure to state a cause of action because the communications concerning DLA Piper's representation foreclosed the possibility that Link Motion could establish, or that Felicello Law could in good faith have believed, that DLA Piper breached a duty to provide competent legal services.
  3. Sanctions were properly awarded against Link Motion and Felicello Law because they asserted a frivolous legal-malpractice claim containing false allegations despite having no possibility of proving, and no good-faith basis for believing, that DLA Piper acted negligently.
  4. The lower court providently exercised its discretion in determining the reasonable amount of attorneys' fees and disbursements incurred by DLA Piper in defending the litigation.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the continuous-representation toll applied to render Link Motion's legal-malpractice claim timely.
  2. Whether the amended complaint stated a cause of action for legal malpractice.
  3. Whether sanctions under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 were properly imposed against Link Motion and Felicello Law.
  4. Whether the amount of attorneys' fees and disbursements awarded to DLA Piper was reasonable.

Disposition

affirmed

Cases Cited (4)

  • Shumsky v. Eisenstein, 96 N.Y.2d 164, 171 (2001)(followed)
  • Walsh v. Wallace Law Off., 203 A.D.3d 684, 685 (1st Dep't 2022)(followed)
  • Kyowa Seni, Co., Ltd. v. ANA Aircraft Technics, Co., Ltd., 239 A.D.3d 413, 414 (1st Dep't 2025)(followed)
  • Sprecase v. Tenreiro, 216 A.D.3d 499 (1st Dep't 2023), leave dismissed, 40 N.Y.3d 1090 (2024)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…