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.
CARTER FINANCIAL CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ATLANTIC MEDICAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al., Defendants-Appellants. [And Another Action]
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 U.S.C. § 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 U.S.C. § 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 (see, Romano v. Romano, 19 N.Y.2d 444, 448, 280 N.Y.S.2d 570, 227 N.E.2d 389; Singer v. Lilly & Co., 153 A.D.2d 210, 214, 549 N.Y.S.2d 654). Accordingly, CPLR 203(d), which deals only with Statutes of Limitations and not matters of substance, is inapplicable (see, Kaplan v. State of New York, 152 A.D.2d 417, 418, 549 N.Y.S.2d 853). 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.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: June 17, 1999
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)