On June 12, 2018, the Court of Appeals issued a decision in 2138747 Ontario, Inc. v. Samsung C&T Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op. 04274, holding that when a contract provides that it will be enforced according to New York law, the New York borrowing statute will be used to determine the appropriate statute of limitations,… Read more »
Blogs
Posts Categorized: Statute of Limitations/Laches
Martin Act Claims are Subject to Three-Year Statute of Limitations
On June 12, 2018, the Court of Appeals issued a decision in People v. Credit Suisse Sec. (USA) LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op. 04272, holding that Martin Act claims have a three year statute of limitations, explaining: The first issue before us is whether Martin Act claims are governed by CPLR 214(2), imposing a three-year… Read more »
Amendment to Name Defendant Did Not Relate Back to Date of Original Complaint
On May 3, 2018, the First Department issued a decision in Markov v. Stack’s LLC (Delaware), 2018 NY Slip Op. 03238, holding that a proposed amendment to a complaint to name a new defendant did not relate back to the date of the original complaint, explaining: The motion court properly dismissed the complaint on the… Read more »
Claim Against New Defendant Did Not Relate Back to Earlier Complaint; New Defendant Was Not Liable for Acts of Original Defendants
On May 3, 2018, the Third Department issued a decision in Belair Care Center, Inc. v. Cool Insuring Agency, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op. 03196, holding that a proposed claim against a new defendant was time-barred because it did not relate back to earlier claims, explaining: Plaintiffs’ further contend that the proposed new causes of… Read more »
Written Acknowledgment of Debt by Agent of Party Can Extend Statute of Limitations
On April 17, 2018, the First Department issued a decision in Nelux Holdings Intl., N.V. v. Dweck, 2018 NY Slip Op. 02569, holding that a written acknowledgement of a debt by a party’s agent can extend the statute of limitation, explaining: Defendant borrower established prima facie through the loan agreement and the notes that the… Read more »
Statute of Limitations Does Not Apply to Claim Based on Allegedly Forged Deed
On March 13, 2018, Justice Knipel of the Kings County Commercial Division issued a decision in Stewart v. VSR Stewart Mgt., LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op. 30433(U), denying a motion to dismiss on statute of limitations ground, holding that the statute of limitations was not a defense to a claim based on a forged deed,… Read more »
Judge Ross Dismisses Personal Injury Claim against Airline as time-barred under Montreal Convention
Posted by Solomon N. Klein, Litigation Partner District Judge Allyne R. Ross recently dismissed a personal injury case against Pakistan International Airlines, holding that the time limitations under the Montreal Convention is not subject to tolling under New York law – even if New York law might otherwise apply to calculating the time period. Mughal… Read more »
Plaintiff’s Claims Tolled During Pendency of Earlier Federal Action
On February 22, 2018, Justice Masley of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Mullin v. WL Ross & Co. LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op. 30330(U), holding that a plaintiff’s claims were tolled during the pendency of an earlier federal action, explaining: Pursuant to CPLR 205 (a), where an action is timely… Read more »
Counterclaims Entitled to Benefit of Relation-Back Doctrine
On February 23, 2018, Justice Scarpulla of the New York County issued a decision in Sharbat v. AGS Capital Group, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op. 30333(U), holding that counterclaims related back to the date of the initial complaint for statute of limitations purposes, explaining: Plaintiffs argue that the breach of contract counterclaim is timed-barred by… Read more »
Fraud Claim Should Not Have Been Dismissed as Time-Barred; Question of Fact Existed Regarding When Fraud Should Have Been Discovered
On December 5, 2017, the First Department issued a decision in Berman v. Holland & Knight, LLP, 2017 NY Slip Op. 08489, holding that a fraud claim against a law firm should not have been dismissed because there was a question of fact regarding when the fraud should have been discovered, explaining: The two-year discovery… Read more »