You are here: / / EVERY CAUSE OF ACTION WAS ERRONEOUSLY DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED; THE PROPER...
, , , ,

EVERY CAUSE OF ACTION WAS ERRONEOUSLY DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED; THE PROPER CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING THE CORRECT STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS DISCUSSED IN SOME DETAIL (SECOND DEPT).

​The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined several causes of action including fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of constructive trust, and breach of contract should not have been dismissed as time-barred:

“‘[W]here an allegation of fraud is essential to a breach of fiduciary duty claim, courts have applied a six-year statute of limitations under CPLR 213(8)'” … . * * * … [P]laintiffs discovered the alleged fraud in 2019 and the cause of action was timely commenced within two years. * * *

… [T]he statute of limitations on the cause of action for the imposition of a constructive trust did not begin to run until 2019, when [defendant] allegedly breached his promise … . …

“[I]n order to determine the statute of limitations applicable to an action for a declaratory judgment, a court must examine the substance of the action. Where it is determined that the parties’ dispute can be, or could have been, resolved in an action or proceeding for which a specific limitation period is statutorily required, that limitation period governs” … . * * *

… Supreme Court erred in concluding that the causes of action alleging fraud in the inducement and promissory estoppel are time-barred. The statute of limitations for those causes of action is six years … . …

The statute of limitations applicable to a breach of contract cause of action is six years (see CPLR 213[2]), “and begins at the time of the breach, even when no damage occurs until later, and even though the injured party may be ignorant of the existence of the wrong or injury” … . Statharos v Statharos, 2023 NY Slip Op 04226, Second Dept 8-9-23

Practice Point: Here the criteria for determining the applicable statute of limitations for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, breach of constructive trust, declaratory judgment, promissory estoppel, fraud in the inducement and breach of contract are discussed in some detail.

You might also like
CAUSES OF ACTION ALLEGING BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY DO NOT ACCRUE UNTIL THE FIDUCIARY DUTY IS OPENLY REPUDIATED; CAUSES OF ACTION FOR CONVERSION BASED UPON FRAUD ARE TIMELY SIX YEARS FROM THE CONVERSION OR TWO YEARS FROM DISCOVERY OF THE CONVERSION; THE RELEVANT CAUSES OF ACTION HERE, THEREFORE, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​
Striking Answer for Spoliation of Evidence Too Severe a Sanction—Spoliation Was Not “Willful or Contumacious,” Both Parties Were Prejudiced by the Loss, Plaintiff Was Not Deprived of Means of Proving the Claim
ALLOWING AN UNSWORN WITNESS TO TESTIFY WAS ERROR; ALLOWING QUESTIONING ABOUT A WITNESS’S ASSERTION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL; FIFTH AMENDMENT ISSUES CONSIDERED ON APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; 710.30 NOTICE NOT REQUIRED FOR A STATEMENT NOT SUBJECT TO SUPPRESSION; NEW TRIAL ORDERED BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE (SECOND DEPT).
PRE-LITIGATION INVESTIGATION BY THE INSURER’S LAW FIRM INTO WHETHER TO REJECT OR PAY AN INSURANCE CLAIM IS NOT PRIVILEGED AND IS DISCOVERABLE, THE ATTORNEY WHO CONDUCTED THE INVESTIGATION WAS PROPERLY DISQUALIFIED FROM THE UNDERLYING LITIGATION, BUT HER LAW FIRM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED (SECOND DEPT).
FOUNDATION FOR OPINION EVIDENCE OUTSIDE PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S FIELD WAS NOT LAID, DEFENDANT SURGEON’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
AFTER THE INCAPACITATED PERSON’S DEATH, THE GUARDIAN OF THE PROPERTY IS ALLOWED TO PAY ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES, BUT NOT CLAIMS UNRELATED TO ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES, FROM THE GUARDIANSHIP ESTATE (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY WAS ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT AGENCY DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL AUTHORITY TO ISSUE THE TITLE INSURANCE POLICY TO PLAINTIFF; HOWEVER IT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE AGENCY DID NOT HAVE APPARENT AUTHORITY TO ISSUE THE POLICY; THEREFORE THE TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
A MOTION TO VACATE AN ORDER SHOULD BE TRANSFERRED TO THE JUDGE WHO MADE THE ORDER; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (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

THE SUPPRESSION MOTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED; THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE REASONABLE... IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, A HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD TO DETERMINE IF...