Collins v. Unger

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Collins v. Unger

138 A.D.3d 421, 27 N.Y.S.3d 859

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 5, 2016

Docket161695/13 727 726

StatusPublished

This text of 138 A.D.3d 421 (Collins v. Unger) 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

Collins v. Unger, 138 A.D.3d 421, 27 N.Y.S.3d 859 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), *422 entered on or about October 8, 2014, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants Martin P. Unger’s and Blank Rome, LLP’s motions to dismiss the complaint as against them pursuant to CPLR 3211, and order, same court and Justice, entered on or about December 22, 2014, which granted Blank Rome’s motion to dismiss the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The legal claims are time-barred (see e.g. Chelsea Piers L.P. v Hudson Riv. Park Trust, 106 AD3d 410, 412 [1st Dept 2013] [“a breach of contract cause of action accrues at the time of the breach, even if no damage occurs until later” (internal quotation marks omitted)]; Sanchez de Hernandez v Bank of Nova Scotia, 76 AD3d 929, 930 [1st Dept 2010] [there was no “affirmative breach that occurred within the limitations period”], lv denied 16 NY3d 705 [2011]), and the equitable claim for an accounting is barred by laches (see Matter of Linker, 23 AD3d 186 [1st Dept 2005]).

Concur — Tom, J.P., Friedman, Richter, Gische and Gesmer, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), *422 entered on or about October 8, 2014, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants Martin P. Unger’s and Blank Rome, LLP’s motions to dismiss the complaint as against them pursuant to CPLR 3211, and order, same court and Justice, entered on or about December 22, 2014, which granted Blank Rome’s motion to dismiss the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The legal claims are time-barred (see e.g. Chelsea Piers L.P. v Hudson Riv. Park Trust, 106 AD3d 410, 412 [1st Dept 2013] [“a breach of contract cause of action accrues at the time of the breach, even if no damage occurs until later” (internal quotation marks omitted)]; Sanchez de Hernandez v Bank of Nova Scotia, 76 AD3d 929, 930 [1st Dept 2010] [there was no “affirmative breach that occurred within the limitations period”], lv denied 16 NY3d 705 [2011]), and the equitable claim for an accounting is barred by laches (see Matter of Linker, 23 AD3d 186 [1st Dept 2005]).

Concur — Tom, J.P., Friedman, Richter, Gische and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 A.D.3d 421, 27 N.Y.S.3d 859, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/collins-v-unger-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack