Posts Categorized: Statute of Limitations/Laches

Posted: April 16, 2021

Continuous Representation Doctrine Saves Legal Malpractice Claim From Being Time-Barred

On April 1, 2021, the First Department issued a decision in Boesky v. Levine, 2021 NY Slip Op. 02059, holding that the continuous representation doctrine saved a legal malpractice claim from being time-barred, explaining: The claim should also be reinstated against Herrick Feinstein. This Court, in HNH Intl., Ltd. v Pryor Cashman Sherman & Flynn... Read more »

Posted: March 29, 2021

Statute of Limitations for Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim Based on Fraud is Six Years, Not Three

On March 25, 2021, the First Department issued a decision in Wimbledon Fin. Master Fund, Ltd. v. Hallac, 2021 NY Slip Op. 01881, holding that the statute of limitations for a breach of fiduciary duty claim based on fraud was six years, explaining: The first and second causes of action — for aiding and abetting... Read more »

Posted: February 19, 2021

Dismissal for Failure Timely to Move for Default Judgment, Without More, Not Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute for CPLR 205 Purposes

On February 11, 2021, the Fourth Department issued a decision in Broadway Warehouse Co. v. Buffalo Barn Bd., LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op. 00963, holding that a dismissal for failure timely to move for default judgment, without more, was not a dismissal for failure to prosecute for CPLR 205 purposes, explaining: In 2012, plaintiff commenced... Read more »

Posted: February 1, 2021

Legal Malpractice Claim Not Saved by the Continuous Representation Doctrine

On January 26, 2021, the First Department issued a decision in Pace v. Horowitz, 2021 NY Slip Op. 00392, holding that a legal malpractice claim was not saved by the continuous representation doctrine, explaining: The court correctly determined that plaintiffs failed to show that there is an issue of fact as to whether the legal... Read more »

Posted: December 31, 2020

Statute of Limitations on Defamation Claim Runs from Date of Statement, Not Date of Discovery

On December 17, 2020, Justice Ostrager of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in H. Roske & Assoc., LP v. Burghart, 2020 NY Slip Op. 34220(U), holding that the statute of limitations on a claim for defamation runs from the date of the defamatory statement, not the date of discovery, explaining: Counterclaim... Read more »

Posted: December 24, 2020

Fraud Claim Time-Barred Because Plaintiff Was on Inquiry Notice More Than Two Years Before Suit Filed

On December 8, 2020, Justice Friedman of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Ambac Assur. Corp. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op. 34044(U), holding that a fraud claim was time-barred because the plaintiff was on inquiry notice of its claim more than two years before the suit was... Read more »

Posted: December 8, 2020

Signed Acknowledgement of Debt Revives Time-Barred Claim

On November 25, 2020, the Second Department issued a decision in U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Mandracchia, 2020 NY Slip Op. 07118, holding that a signed acknowledgement of a debt revives a time-barred claim, explaining: On the statute of limitations issue, the mortgage debt was accelerated in 2007, which started the statute of limitations running on... Read more »

Posted: November 13, 2020

Contract Term Unreasonably Limiting Statute of Limitations Unenforceable

On October 26, 2020, Justice Platkin of the Albany County Commercial Division issued a decision in State of New York v. All Around Stor., L.L.C., 2020 NY Slip Op. 51265(U), holding that a contract term unreasonably limiting the statute of limitations was unenforceable, explaining: On a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) to dismiss a cause... Read more »

Posted: November 2, 2020

New York Court of Appeals Recognizes Cross-Jurisdictional Class Action Tolling

On October 20, 2020, the Court of Appeals issued a decision in Chavez v. Occidental Chem. Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op. 05839, adopting cross-jurisdictional class action tolling of the statute of limitations, explaining: We conclude that a determination that tolling is not available cross-jurisdictionally would subvert article 9—the primary function of which is to allow... Read more »