Huynh v. Greene, Brian & Stern Partnership

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Huynh v. Greene, Brian & Stern Partnership

34 A.D.3d 363, 824 N.Y.S.2d 635

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

DecidedNovember 28, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 34 A.D.3d 363 (Huynh v. Greene, Brian & Stern Partnership) 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

Huynh v. Greene, Brian & Stern Partnership, 34 A.D.3d 363, 824 N.Y.S.2d 635 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered December 8, 2005, which granted the motions pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) by defendants Rita Greene and the partnership, and by defendant Frishwasser, to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs cause of action for breach of contract was barred for any claims arising more than six years prior to commencement of the action (CPLR 213 [2]; see Natimir Rest. Supply v London 62 Co., 140 AD2d 261 [1988]). That portion of the claim not barred by the statute of limitations nonetheless failed to state a cause of action in light of an unambiguous clause in the lease requiring plaintiff to pay 100% of the metered water charges billed for the entire building (see Lake Constr. & Dev. Corp. v City of New York, 211 AD2d 514 [1995]).

The fraud claims were properly dismissed as having been raised more than six years after the alleged occurrence. Plaintiff had knowledge of facts enabling him, with reasonable diligence, to infer defendant’s fraud, and this action should have been commenced within two years of that discovery (see generally Saphir Intl., SA v UBS PaineWebber Inc., 25 AD3d 315 [2006]; K&E Trading & Shipping v Radmar Trading Corp., 174 AD2d 346 [1991]).

[364]*364We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them without merit. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Saxe, Williams, Sweeny and Malone, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered December 8, 2005, which granted the motions pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) by defendants Rita Greene and the partnership, and by defendant Frishwasser, to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs cause of action for breach of contract was barred for any claims arising more than six years prior to commencement of the action (CPLR 213 [2]; see Natimir Rest. Supply v London 62 Co., 140 AD2d 261 [1988]). That portion of the claim not barred by the statute of limitations nonetheless failed to state a cause of action in light of an unambiguous clause in the lease requiring plaintiff to pay 100% of the metered water charges billed for the entire building (see Lake Constr. & Dev. Corp. v City of New York, 211 AD2d 514 [1995]).

The fraud claims were properly dismissed as having been raised more than six years after the alleged occurrence. Plaintiff had knowledge of facts enabling him, with reasonable diligence, to infer defendant’s fraud, and this action should have been commenced within two years of that discovery (see generally Saphir Intl., SA v UBS PaineWebber Inc., 25 AD3d 315 [2006]; K&E Trading & Shipping v Radmar Trading Corp., 174 AD2d 346 [1991]).

[364]*364We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them without merit. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Saxe, Williams, Sweeny and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.3d 363, 824 N.Y.S.2d 635, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/huynh-v-greene-brian-stern-partnership-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack