Cali v. Savino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cali v. Savino

127 A.D.3d 404, 4 N.Y.S.3d 499

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 2, 2015·No. 14693 304456/13·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx *405 County (Wilma Guzman, J.), entered March 7, 2014, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.

The fiduciary duty claims here sound in fraud, and thus the two year discovery rule of CPLR 213 (8) applies to this action (see Kaufman v Cohen, 307 AD2d 113, 122 [1st Dept 2003]). Under the circumstances of this case, and at this pleading stage, it was error for the IAS court to conclude as a matter of law that the case was barred by the statute of limitations.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.R, Sweeny, DeGrasse, Feinman and Gische, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx *405 County (Wilma Guzman, J.), entered March 7, 2014, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.

The fiduciary duty claims here sound in fraud, and thus the two year discovery rule of CPLR 213 (8) applies to this action (see Kaufman v Cohen, 307 AD2d 113, 122 [1st Dept 2003]). Under the circumstances of this case, and at this pleading stage, it was error for the IAS court to conclude as a matter of law that the case was barred by the statute of limitations.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.R, Sweeny, DeGrasse, Feinman and Gische, JJ.

Cali v. Savino, 127 A.D.3d 404, 4 N.Y.S.3d 499 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

127 A.D.3d 404 (Cali v. Savino) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related