Carter Financial Corp. v. Atlantic Medical Management, L. L. C.

262 A.D.2d 178, 691 N.Y.S.2d 529, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6774
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 17, 1999
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 262 A.D.2d 178 (Carter Financial Corp. v. Atlantic Medical Management, L. L. C.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Carter Financial Corp. v. Atlantic Medical Management, L. L. C., 262 A.D.2d 178, 691 N.Y.S.2d 529, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6774 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered January 20, 1999, which, in an action to recover placement fees and profit interests that plaintiff allegedly earned while acting as a placement agent for defendant investment fund and its principals, insofar as appealed from, denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground of illegality, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The defense of illegality, based on plaintiff’s failure to register as a broker-dealer in violation of Securities Exchange Act of 1934 § 15 (a) (1) (15 USC § 78o [a] [1]), was properly rejected on the ground that it was not raised within three years after the violation or one year after its discovery (Securities Exchange Act of 1934 § 29 [b] [15 USC § 78cc (b)]). There is no merit to defendants’ argument that the defense is saved by CPLR 203 (d). Since defendants’ right to assert plaintiff’s nonregistration is a creation of the very statute placing a time limit on the assertion of that right, the time limit must be regarded “ ‘as a matter of substance, limiting the right as well as the remedy’ ”, and not as a Statute of Limitations (Romano v Romano, 19 NY2d 444, 448; Singer v Eli Lilly & Co., 153 AD2d 210, 214). Accordingly, CPLR 203 (d), which deals only with Statutes of Limitation and not matters of substance, is inapplicable (see, Kaplan v State of New York, 152 AD2d 417, 418). We have considered defendants’ other arguments, including that section 29 (b) applies only to actions and not defenses, and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Mazzarelli, Rubin and Andrias, JJ.

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

Related

Marcum, LLP v. Silva
117 A.D.3d 917 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Obstfeld v. Thermo Niton Analyzers, LLC
108 A.D.3d 658 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Lawrence v. Richman Group of Connecticut, LLC
407 F. Supp. 2d 385 (D. Connecticut, 2005)
Celsion Corp. v. Stearns Management Corp.
157 F. Supp. 2d 942 (N.D. Illinois, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
262 A.D.2d 178, 691 N.Y.S.2d 529, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6774, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carter-financial-corp-v-atlantic-medical-management-l-l-c-nyappdiv-1999.