You are here: / / CONTINUING WRONG DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY TO EXTEND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS...
,

CONTINUING WRONG DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY TO EXTEND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION.

The First Department determined the continuing wrong doctrine did not apply to extend the statute of limitations in this breach of contract action. Plaintiff alleged he should not have been billed for certain services in which he never enrolled and the issuance of each new bill continued the wrong:

In contract actions, the doctrine is applied to extend the statute of limitations when the contract imposes a continuing duty on the breaching party … . Thus, where a plaintiff asserts a single breach — with damages increasing as the breach continued — the continuing wrong theory does not apply … .

Here, the alleged wrongs are the enrollment of plaintiff in the CPP and PAS programs in March 2001 and 2007, respectively, and there was no breach of a recurring duty. The monthly billings demanding payment of CPP and PAS fees, both before and after plaintiff closed his account, represent the consequences of those wrongful acts in the form of continuing damages, not the wrongs themselves, and do not qualify for application of the continuous wrong doctrine. Henry v Bank of Am., 2017 NY Slip Op 01436, 1st Dept 2-23-17

 

CONTRACT LAW (CONTINUING WRONG DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY TO EXTEND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (CONTINUING WRONG DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY TO EXTEND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION)/CONTINUING WRONG DOCTRINE (CONTRACT LAW, CONTINUING WRONG DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY TO EXTEND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION)/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (CONTINUING WRONG DOCTRINE, CONTRACT LAW, CONTINUING WRONG DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY TO EXTEND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION)

You might also like
DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT WAS AN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD WHICH HAD RELINQUISHED CONTROL OVER THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON A FLOOR ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN SLIPPERY BECAUSE IT HAD BEEN WAXED (FIRST DEPT). ​
BANK’S POSSESSION OF THE NOTES CONSOLIDATED BY A CONSOLIDATION, EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION AGREEMENT (CEMA) CONFERRED STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION, POSSESSION OF THE ORIGINAL NOTES WAS NOT REQUIRED (FIRST DEPT).
CONTINGENCY FEE RETAINER VIOLATED FEDERAL LAW AND WAS VOID, UNJUST ENRICHMENT THEORY NOT AVAILABLE ON EQUITABLE AND EVIDENTIARY GROUNDS (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE APPELLANT WAS IN JAPAN, THE 1ST DEPARTMENT REFUSED TO DISMISS THE APPEAL PURSUANT TO THE FUGITIVE DISENTITLEMENT DOCTRINE IN THIS FAMILY COURT CIVIL-CONTEMPT MATTER; APPELLANT HAD APPEARED VIRTUALLY IN COURT PROCEEDINGS AND STATED HE WOULD RETURN TO NEW YORK TO COMPLY WITH ANY COURT ORDER (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE BUILDING MANAGEMENT COMPANY WAS LIABLE, PURSUANT TO ESPINAL FACTORS, FOR INFANT PLAINTIFF’S FALL INTO THE ELEVATOR SHAFT (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS THE PROPERTY OWNER’S RESPONSIBILITY UNDER THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OR THE CITY’S RESPONSIBILITY AS PART OF A BUS STOP (FIRST DEPT).
THE ABSENCE FROM THE JURY CHARGE OF AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF ATTEMPTED ROBBERY FIRST DEGREE (ACTUAL POSSESSION OF A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT) REQUIRED REVERSAL IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE.
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF A HOLE WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO FALL, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED.

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

CONTRACT FOR INTERIOR DECORATOR SERVICES AND THE PURCHASE OF FURNITURE AND ACCESSORIES... AGREEMENT TO FOREGO APPLYING FOR A REAL PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION IN RETURN FOR...