You are here: / / HERE THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHEN THE PLAINTIFFS BECAME AWARE...
,

HERE THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHEN THE PLAINTIFFS BECAME AWARE OF THE ALLEGED FRAUD; THEREFORE THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact concerning when the plaintiffs became aware of the alleged fraud. Therefore the complaint should not have been dismissed as time-barred:

Fraud claims must be commenced within “the greater of six years from the date the cause of action accrued or two years from the time the plaintiff . . . discovered the fraud, or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it” (CPLR 213[8]). * * *

Assuming, arguendo, that defendants met their prima facie burden on the motion, an issue of fact exists as to whether plaintiffs were on inquiry notice of the fraud more than two years before they commenced the action … . Murray v Stone, 2023 NY Slip Op 01749, First Dept 3-30-23

Practice Point:  A fraud action must be brought within six years of accrual or two years of discovery of the fraud.

 

You might also like
Detective’s Strongly Urging Defendant to Make a Statement Did Not Render Statement Involuntary
“Criminal Enterprise” Does Not Require Continuity of Criminal Participants
THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON ICE AND SNOW IN A “PASSAGEWAY” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN A DRILL FELL FROM A CO-WORKER WHO WAS STANDING ON AN A-FRAME LADDER; THE DRILL SHOULD HAVE BEEN TETHERED TO THE CO-WORKER’S PERSON; PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
THE EVIDENCE DEFENDANT SHARED THE CO-DEFENDANT’S INTENT TO STAB THE VICTIM WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT (FIRST DEPT).
THE WARRANT ENTITLING PLAINTIFF TO MORE THAN 1100 SHARES OF DEFENDANT CORPORATION’S STOCK WAS APPENDED TO PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT WITH DEFENDANT; THE TWO CONTRACTS DID NOT MERGE AND ANY ALLEGED BREACH OF THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT BY PLAINTIFF DID NOT PRECLUDE THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE WARRANT (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT ALLEGED DEFENSE COUNSEL OVERSTATED THE RISK OF DEPORTATION CAUSING HIM TO REJECT A FAVORABLE PLEA OFFER; DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BASED UPON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (FIRST DEPT).
PURSUANT TO THE DOCTRINE OF LACHES, THE DEFENDANT CITY WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE LOWER 5.76% INTEREST RATE ON THE MULTIMILLION DOLLAR JUDGMENT; THE TRIAL JUDGE PROPERLY IMPOSED THE 9% INTEREST RATE PURSUANT TO CPLR 5004 (FIRST 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

WHEN A JUDGE MAKES A WRONG RULING WHICH CANNOT BE APPEALED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT... RE: DETERMINING THE CORRECT JURISDICTION FOR STATUTE-OF-LIMITATIONS PURPOSES,...