You are here: / / Statute of Limitations for Fraud Applies to Forgery​
,

Statute of Limitations for Fraud Applies to Forgery​

The Second Department noted that the statute of limitations provisions for fraud are applied to forgery:

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the statute of limitations for a fraud cause of action applies to a cause of action alleging forgery … .The statute of limitations for a fraud-based cause of action requires that the action be commenced within six years after the allegedly fraudulent act or within two years after discovery, whichever is later….   Faison v Lewis, 2013 NY Slip OP 03813, 2nd Dept, 5-29-13

 

You might also like
APPELLANT’S LATE APPEARANCE FOR A HEARING DID NOT JUSTIFY A DEFAULT FINDING.
PLAINTIFF MORTGAGE COMPANY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AND THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF NEGOTIATED IN GOOD FAITH PURSUANT TO CPLR 3408 (f) (SECOND DEPT).
THE 2015 COURT OF APPEALS DECISION WHICH PROHIBITED INSTRUCTING A JURY THAT IT COULD FIND A DEFENDANT GUILTY OF BOTH DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER AND INTENTIONAL (TRANSFERRED INTENT) MURDER OF A SINGLE VICTIM SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF FELL THROUGH THE FLOOR OF THE BUILDING UNDER RENOVATION WHEN HE WENT IN TO GET A TOOL FOR HIS WORK ON AN ADJACENT BUILDING, HE WAS PERFORMING DUTIES ANCILLARY TO THE CONSTRUCTION WORK AND WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; HEARSAY EVIDENCE IN THE MEDICAL RECORDS WAS NOT ENOUGH TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (SECOND DEPT).
Authenticity of Document Not Demonstrated
THE PROPERTY OWNERS DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT IN THE STOVE IN PLAINTIFF’S APARTMENT AND DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO INSPECT THE STOVE AFTER THEY INSTALLED IT; THE PROPERTY OWNERS WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION STEMMING FROM A STOVE TOP FIRE (SECOND DEPT).
CONSCIOUS PAIN AND SUFFERING CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, EXPERT OPINION EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ACCORDED ANY PROBATIVE FORCE.
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE-OF-FORECLOSURE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Family Court Has Power to Issue Judgment for Child Support Arrearages Preclusion Proper Remedy for Discarding of Computer Containing Crucial Evid...