Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
CARLINGFORD CENTER POINT ASSOCIATES, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MR REALTY ASSOCIATES, L.P., etc., et al., Defendants-Respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered May 28, 2002, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, granted defendants' motion to dismiss to the extent of dismissing as time-barred plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary claims against defendants, MR Realty Associates, L.P. and Kenneth H. Simpson, and plaintiffs' breach of contract claim arising out of the 1992 Management Agreement, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny the motion with respect to plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary claims premised on the 2001 Settlement Agreement, and to reinstate those claims, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
A breach of fiduciary duty claim is governed by either a three-year or six-year limitation period, depending on the nature of the relief sought (see Yatter v. William Morris Agency, Inc., 256 A.D.2d 260, 261, 682 N.Y.S.2d 198). The shorter time period applies where monetary relief is sought, the longer where the relief sought is equitable in nature (see Matter of Kaszirer v. Kaszirer, 286 A.D.2d 598, 730 N.Y.S.2d 87). Since plaintiffs primarily seek damages, and pursue an accounting merely to determine the amount of such damages (see Lex Tenants Corp. v. Gramercy N. Assocs., 284 A.D.2d 278, 726 N.Y.S.2d 852), the motion court properly applied the shorter, three-year limitations period, which bars plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty claims arising before 1998. The court, however, erroneously dismissed as time-barred plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary claims premised on the 2001 Settlement Agreement between defendants and one of their affiliates, the complained-of conduct having fallen well within the statutory period.
The motion court properly dismissed plaintiffs' breach of contract claim arising out of the 1992 Management Agreement as barred by the applicable six-year statute of limitations. Plaintiffs' assertion that the Agreement, although dated January 1, 1992, may not have been executed until years afterward, is purely speculative and inconsistent with the complaint, which alleges that the 1992 Management Agreement was entered into on January 1, 1992.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: February 19, 2004
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)