Brash v. Richards, 195 A.D.3d 582 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2021). · Go Syfert
Brash v. Richards, 195 A.D.3d 582 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2021). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
171 citation events (171 in the last 25 years) across 19 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 2021 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2021 2023 2026
Cited for
At page 582 Distinguishing toll from suspension in time period calculation14 citing cases“a toll suspends the running of the applicable period of limitation for a finite time period, and 'the period of the toll is excluded from the calculation of the relevant time period”5 citing courts quote it · 11 listed here
  • Williams v. Biggs, 2026 NY Slip Op 04790 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2026).published 3 cites
    On March 20, 2020, then Governor Andrew Cuomo issued Executive Order (A. Cuomo) No. 202.8 (9 NYCRR 8.202.8), which temporarily tolled "any specific time limit for the commencement, filing, or service of any legal action, notice, motion, or…
  • Williams v. Biggs, 2026 NY Slip Op 04791 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2026).published
    Although the parties dispute whether service was effectuated on G & G by substituted service on November 2, 2020, or by personal service on a partner on July 27, 2020 ( see Nath v Chemtob Moss Forman & Beyda, LLP , 231 AD3d 546, 548), due…
  • Beatty v. New York City Dist. Council of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., No. 1:23-cv-02126 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2025).
    App. Div. 2022); Brash v. Richards, 195 A.D.3d 582, 582-85 (N.Y.
  • Matter of Catapano, 2025 NY Slip Op 50401(U) (N.Y. Surr. Ct., Putnam Cty. 2025).unpublished 4 cites
    "A toll suspends the running of the applicable period of limitation for a finite time period, and 'the period of the toll is excluded from the calculation of the relevant time period'" ( Brash v Richards , 195 AD3d 582, 582 [2d Dept 2021],…
  • Jackson v. Goodfellas Pizzeria, Inc., 233 A.D.3d 1468 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2024).published
    Thus, the action was timely commenced on June 17, 2021 ( see Bane v Lease-N-Save Corp. , 228 AD3d 1245 , 1247 [4th Dept 2024]; Harden , 221 AD3d at 1462; see also Murphy v Harris , 210 AD3d 410 , 411 [1st Dept 2022]; Matter of Roach v Corn…
  • Elio v. Putnam Cnty. N.Y., 2024 NY Slip Op 50983(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Putnam Cty. 2024).unpublished 4 cites
    "A toll suspends the running of the applicable period of limitation for a finite time period, and 'the period of the toll is excluded from the calculation of the relevant time period'" ( Brash v Richards , 195 AD3d 582, 582 [2d Dept 2021],…
  • Toth v. New York City Dep't of Educ., No. 1:21-cv-04245 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 21, 2024).
    Brash v. Richards, 195 A.D.3d 582, 582 (2d Dep’t 2021); see Murphy v. Harris, 210 A.D.3d 410 , 411 (1st Dep’t 2022).
  • Jackson v. Citywide Mobile Response Corp., 80 Misc. 3d 1113 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2023).published 2 cites
    To be sure, "[a] toll suspends the running of the applicable period of limitation for a finite time period, and the period of the toll is excluded from the calculation of the relevant time period" ( Brash v Richards , 195 AD3d 582, 582 [2d…
  • Aparicio v. Uber Tech. Inc., No. 1:22-cv-04244 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 16, 2023).
    (Unlike a toll, a suspension does not exclude its effective duration from the calculation of the relevant time period. Rather, it simply delays expiration of the time period until the end date of the suspension.” (quota…)
  • Murphy v. Harris, 210 A.D.3d 410 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2022).published 6 cites
    A toll suspends the running of the statute of limitations for a finite time period, whereas a suspension only delays the expiration of the time period until the end date of the suspension ( Brash v Richards , 195 AD3d 582, 582 [2d Dept 202…
Show 1 more citing case
  • Bell v. Saunders, No. 9:20-cv-00256, 2022 WL 2064872 (N.D.N.Y. June 8, 2022).
    “A toll suspends the running of the applicable period of limitation for a finite time period, and ‘[t]he period of the toll is excluded from the calculation of the [relevant time period].’” Brash v. Richards, 149 N.Y.S.3d 560, 561 (N.Y. Ap…
At page 583 Tolling of legal time limits during state disaster emergency7 citing casesexplaining that the executive orders added 228 days to filing deadlines1 citing court put it this way · 6 listed here
  • Williams v. Biggs, 2026 NY Slip Op 04790 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2026).published 3 cites
    On March 20, 2020, then Governor Andrew Cuomo issued Executive Order (A. Cuomo) No. 202.8 (9 NYCRR 8.202.8), which temporarily tolled "any specific time limit for the commencement, filing, or service of any legal action, notice, motion, or…
  • Williams v. Biggs, 2026 NY Slip Op 04792 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2026).published
    Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, Administrative Order of the Chief Administrative Judge of the Courts AO/115/20 ( see AO-115-20, available at https://www.nycourts.gov/whatsnew/pdf/AO-115-20.pdf), issued on May 28, 2020, did not lift…
  • Cortes v. City of New York, 226 A.D.3d 501 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2024).published
    Co. , 211 AD3d 643, 643 [1st Dept 2022]; Brash v Richards , 195 AD3d 582, 583-584 [2d Dept 2021]).
  • Wilmington Trust N.A. v. Fife, 212 A.D.3d 550 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2023).published 2 cites
    (explaining that the executive orders added 228 days to filing deadlines)
  • Weston-Pinillos v. Seaview Manor, LLC, 74 Misc. 3d 137(A) (N.Y. App. Term. 2022).unpublished
    On March 20, 2020, Executive Order 202.8 (9 NYCRR 202.8) tolled "any specific time limit for the commencement, filing, or service of any legal action, notice, motion, or other process or proceeding. . . as prescribed by the procedural laws…
  • Morgan v. Holly St. Holding Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 34844(U) (N.Y. Sup. Kings 2022).unpublished
    As a consequence of the COVID-19 global panJem ic the former Governor of New York issucd severa] Executive Orders tolling the statute of limitations from March 20, 2020 to November 3, 2020 (see Brash v Richards, 195 AD3d 582, 583-585 [2d D…
149 N.Y.S.3d at 563 Tolling of statutory time limitations by executive orders5 citing casesholding that Governor Cuomo’s executive orders effectively tolled the time limitations contained in New York statutes2 citing courts put it this way
  • Loeb v. Cnty. of Suffolk, No. 2:22-cv-06410 (E.D.N.Y. June 23, 2023). 2 cites
    (Since the tolling of a time limitation contained in a statute constitutes a modification of the requirements of such statute within the meaning of Executive Law § 29–a(2)(d), these subsequent executive orders continued…)
  • <font Color=\red\">do Not File in This case</font>- Transferred to Camden - New Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-20270", No. 3:21-cv-20270 (D.N.J. Jan. 17, 2024).
    (finding that the Governor’s executive orders tolled the statute of limitations)
  • Cain v. Cnty. of Niagara, No. 1:20-cv-01710, 2022 WL 616795 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2022). 4 cites
    On November 3, 2020, the Governor issued a final Executive Order which “reiterated that the ‘toll’ would no longer be in effect as of November 4, 2020,” 9 N.Y.C.R.R. § 8.202.72; Brash, supra, 195 A.D.2d 582 , 149 N.Y.S.3d at 563 (emphasis…
  • D.M. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., No. 1:19-cv-01477-ER (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2021).
    (holding that notice of appeal was filed timely as a result of the toll effectuated by Executive Order 202.8)
  • Ndemenoh v. Boudreau, No. 1:20-cv-04492, 2023 WL 6122852 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 19, 2023).
    (holding that Governor Cuomo’s executive orders effectively tolled the time limitations contained in New York statutes)
At page 585 Authority to alter statutes and toll time limitations5 citing cases“indicates that the governor is authorized to do more than just suspend statutes during a state disaster emergency; he or she may alter or modify the requirements of a statute, and tolling of time limitations contained in such statute is within that authority”2 citing courts quote it · 4 listed here
  • Palms P. T., P.C. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2025 NY Slip Op 50706(U) (Civ. Ct. NYC, Kings Cty. 2025).unpublished
    Recitation, as required by CPLR §2219(a) of the Papers considered in review of this Motion: Papers Notice of motion & Affidavits Annexed 1-2 Affirmation in Opposition & Affidavits Annexed 3-4 Defendant's Memorandum of Law 5 Decision and Or…
  • State of New York v. Williams, 224 A.D.3d 1356 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2024).published
    The action was therefore timely commenced on August 17, 2021 ( see Murphy , 210 AD3d at 411; [*2]Brash v Richards , 195 AD3d 582, 585 [2d Dept 2021]; cf. Matter of Roach v Cornell Univ. , 207 AD3d 931, 933 [3d Dept 2022]).
  • Powell v. Harvard Club, No. 1:21-cv-01477 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 2023). 2 cites
    “indicates that the Governor is authorized to do more than just ‘suspend’ statutes during a state of disaster emergency; he or she may ‘alter or modify’ the requirements of a statute, and a tolling of time limitations co…”
  • Murphy v. Harris, 210 A.D.3d 410 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2022).published 6 cites
    A toll suspends the running of the statute of limitations for a finite time period, whereas a suspension only delays the expiration of the time period until the end date of the suspension ( Brash v Richards , 195 AD3d 582, 582 [2d Dept 202…
149 N.Y.S.3d at 561 Tolls suspending periods of limitation4 citing cases“A toll suspends the running of the applicable period of limitation for a finite time period, and the period of the toll is excluded from the calculation of the relevant time period”2 citing courts quote it
  • Loeb v. Cnty. of Suffolk, No. 2:22-cv-06410 (E.D.N.Y. June 23, 2023). 2 cites
    See e.g., Brash, 149 N.Y.S.3d at 563 (“Since the tolling of a time limitation contained in a statute constitutes a modification of the requirements of such statute within the meaning of Executive Law § 29–a(2)(d), these subsequent executiv…
  • Messam v. Starbucks Coffee Co., No. 1:23-cv-06230 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 8, 2024).
    “A toll suspends the running of the applicable period of limitation for a finite time period, and the period of the toll is excluded from the calculation of the relevant time period”
  • Bell v. Saunders, No. 9:20-cv-00256, 2022 WL 2064872 (N.D.N.Y. June 8, 2022).
    “A toll suspends the running of the applicable period of limitation for a finite time period, and ‘[t]he period of the toll is excluded from the calculation of the [relevant time period]”
  • Cain v. Cnty. of Niagara, No. 1:20-cv-01710, 2022 WL 616795 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2022). 4 cites
    On November 3, 2020, the Governor issued a final Executive Order which “reiterated that the ‘toll’ would no longer be in effect as of November 4, 2020,” 9 N.Y.C.R.R. § 8.202.72; Brash, supra, 195 A.D.2d 582 , 149 N.Y.S.3d at 563 (emphasis…
At page 584 Executive order tolling of statutes of limitations5 citing cases3 listed here
  • Est. of Brook v. Ruotolo, 2026 NY Slip Op 51420(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. 2026).unpublished
    On October 4, 2020, the Governor issued EO 202.67, providing for a final extension of the tolling deadline until November 3, 2020, and reciting that the "toll would no longer be in effect" as of November 4, 2020 ( Brash v Richards , 195 AD…
  • Matter of Catapano, 2025 NY Slip Op 50401(U) (N.Y. Surr. Ct., Putnam Cty. 2025).unpublished 4 cites
    "A toll suspends the running of the applicable period of limitation for a finite time period, and 'the period of the toll is excluded from the calculation of the relevant time period'" ( Brash v Richards , 195 AD3d 582, 582 [2d Dept 2021],…
  • People v. Trump, 217 A.D.3d 609 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2023).published 2 cites
    Similarly, we decline to reconsider our decisions finding that certain executive orders tolled statutes of limitations during the pandemic ( see Murphy v Harris , 210 AD3d 410 , 411 [1st Dept 2022]), and that this toll was properly authori…
149 N.Y.S.3d at 585 cited at this page2 citing cases
  • Natale v. Allied Aviation Servs., Inc, No. 1:23-cv-07260 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2024). 2 cites
    Plaintiffs respond that they have pleaded “sufficient facts” for the Court to conclude at this stage that “Allied Aviation Services, Inc. should be considered a single employer with and/or alter-ego of Defendant Allied New York Services, I…
  • Flaherty v. Dixon, No. 1:22-cv-02642, 2023 WL 2051861 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 16, 2023).
    See Murphy v. Harris, No. 2021-02991, 2022 WL 16556686 , at *1-2 (1st Dep’t Nov. 1, 2022); Roach v. Cornell Univ., 172 N.Y.S.3d 215, 218 (3d Dep’t 2022); Brash v. Richards, 149 N.Y.S.3d 560, 585 (2d Dep’t 2021).
149 N.Y.S.3d at 562 listing the series of nine executive orders extending the toll1 citing case1 citing court put it this way
149 N.Y.S.3d at 560 cited at this page1 citing case
  • Powell v. United States, No. 1:19-cv-11351 (S.D.N.Y. May 24, 2022).
    See Brash v. Richards, 149 N.Y.S.3d 560, 560 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep’t 2021).
Other citing cases12 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Show 2 more citing cases
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Brash
v.
Richards
Index No. 1812/12.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 2, 2021.
Published opinion
195 A.D.3d 582
Brash v Richards (2021 NY Slip Op 03436)
Brash v Richards
2021 NY Slip Op 03436
Decided on June 2, 2021
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on June 2, 2021 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P.
REINALDO E. RIVERA
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS
LEONARD B. AUSTIN, JJ.

2020-08551
(Index No. 1812/12)

[*1]Nikki Brash, appellant,

v

Neil M. Richards, etc., et al., respondents, et al., defendant.




Goldstein & Goldstein, P.C., Brooklyn, NY (Benjamin S. Goldstein of counsel), for appellant.

Megan A. Lawless, Garden City, NY, for respondent Neil M. Richards.

Martin Clearwater & Bell, New York, NY (Barbara D. Goldberg of counsel), for respondent Harrison Mu.



[*~582–583]

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered October 2, 2020. Motion by the respondent Neil M. Richards to dismiss the appeal as untimely taken and on the ground that no appeal lies from an order determining a motion in limine. Separate motion by the respondent Harrison Mu to dismiss the appeal as untimely taken and on the ground that no appeal lies from an order determining a motion in limine.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motions and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is

ORDERED that the motions are denied.

The respondent Neil M. Richards moves, and the respondent Harrison Mu separately moves, to dismiss this appeal as untimely taken and on the ground that no appeal lies from an order determining a motion in limine. These motions raise the issue of whether a series of executive orders issued by Governor Andrew Cuomo, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, constitute a toll or, alternatively, a suspension of filing deadlines applicable to litigation in the New York courts. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the subject executive orders constitute a toll of such filing deadlines. As a result, this appeal was timely taken.

A toll suspends the running of the applicable period of limitation for a finite time period, and "[t]he period of the toll is excluded from the calculation of the [relevant time period]" (Chavez v Occidental Chem. Corp., 35 NY3d 492, 505 n 8; see Foy v State of New York, 71 Misc 3d 605 [Ct Cl]). "Unlike a toll, a suspension does not exclude its effective duration from the calculation of the relevant time period. Rather, it simply delays expiration of the time period until the end date of the suspension" (Foy v State of New York, 71 Misc 3d at 608).

In this case, a copy of the order appealed from was served upon the appellant, with written notice of its entry, on October 2, 2020. CPLR 5513(a) provides that an appeal must be taken [*2]within 30 days of service of a copy of the order or judgment appealed from and written notice of its entry. The appellant served and filed a notice of appeal on November 10, 2020. According to the respondents, the notice of appeal was untimely served and filed, because, in their view, Governor Cuomo suspended filing deadlines in civil litigation in the New York courts until November 3, 2020. In contrast, the appellant argues that Governor Cuomo tolled such filing deadlines, meaning that the appellant had 30 days from November 3, 2020, to serve and file the notice of appeal. As a result, the appellant maintains that the notice of appeal, served and filed on November 10, 2020, was timely.

[*~582–584]

Executive Law § 29-a(1) provides that the Governor "may by executive order temporarily suspend specific provisions of any statute, local law, ordinance, or orders, rules or regulations, or parts thereof, of any agency during a state disaster emergency, if compliance with such provisions would prevent, hinder, or delay action necessary to cope with the disaster." Executive Law § 29-a(2)(d) provides that any such order "may provide for the alteration or modification of the requirements of such statute, local law, ordinance, order, rule or regulation suspended, and may include other terms and conditions."

On March 20, 2020 Governor Cuomo issued Executive Order (A. Cuomo) No. 202.8 (9 NYCRR 8.202.8), which provided:

"I hereby temporarily suspend or modify, for the period from the date of this Executive Order through April 19, 2020 the following:

"In accordance with the directive of the Chief Judge of the State to limit court operations to essential matters during the pendency of the COVID-19 health crisis, any specific time limit for the commencement, filing, or service of any legal action, notice, motion, or other process or proceeding, as prescribed by the procedural laws of the state, including but not limited to the criminal procedure law, the family court act, the civil practice law and rules, the court of claims act, the surrogate's court procedure act, and the uniform court acts, or by any other statute, local law, ordinance, order, rule, or regulation, or part thereof, is hereby tolled from the date of this executive order until April 19, 2020."

Governor Cuomo later issued a series of nine subsequent executive orders that extended the suspension or tolling period, eventually through November 3, 2020 (see Executive Order [A. Cuomo] Nos. 202.14, 202.28, 202.38, 202.48, 202.55, 202.55.1, 202.60, 202.67, 202.72 [9 NYCRR 8.202.14, 8.202.28, 8.202.38, 8.202.48, 8.202.55, 8.202.55.1, 8.202.60, 8.202.67, 8.202.72]). These subsequent executive orders either stated that the Governor "hereby continue[s] the suspensions, and modifications of law, and any directives, not superseded by a subsequent directive," made in the prior executive orders (Executive Order [A. Cuomo] Nos. 202.14, 202.28, 202.38, 202.48, 202.67, 202.72 [9 NYCRR 8.202.14, 8.202.28, 8.202.38, 8.202.48, 8.202.67, 8.202.72]) or contained nearly identical language to that effect (see Executive Order [A. Cuomo] Nos. 202.55, 202.55.1, 202.60 [9 NYCRR 8.202.55, 8.202.55.1, 8.202.60]). While most of the subsequent executive orders did not use the word "toll," Executive Order (A. Cuomo) No. 202.67 (9 NYCRR 8.202.67) issued on October 5, 2020, provided that the:

[*~583–585]

"suspension in Executive Order 202.8, as modified and extended in subsequent Executive Orders, that tolled any specific time limit for the commencement, filing, or service of any legal action, notice, motion, or other process or proceeding as prescribed by the procedural laws of the state, including but not limited to the criminal procedure law, the family court act, the civil practice law and rules, the court of claims act, the surrogate's court procedure act, and the uniform court acts, or by any statute, local law, ordinance, order, rule, or regulation, or part thereof, is hereby continued, as modified by prior executive orders, provided however, for any civil case, such suspension is only effective until November 3, 2020, and after such date any such time limit will no longer be tolled."

Finally, Executive Order (A. Cuomo) No. 202.72 (9 NYCRR 8.202.72), issued on November 3, 2020, reiterated that the "toll" would no longer be in effect as of November 4, 2020 (see Executive Order [A. Cuomo] No. 202.72 [9 NYCRR 8.202.72]).

Governor Cuomo's March 20, 2020 executive order, Executive Order (A. Cuomo) No. 202.8 (9 NYCRR 8.202.8), expressly and plainly provided that the subject time limits were "hereby tolled," and two of the subsequent executive orders referred to the temporary alternation of the subject time limits as a "toll[ ]" (Executive Order [A. Cuomo] Nos. 202.67, 202.72 [9 NYCRR 8.202.67, 8.202.72]; see Foy v State of New York, 71 Misc 3d 605; Kugel v Broadway 280 Park Fee LLC, Jan. 28, 2021 at 17, col 2, 2021 NYLJ LEXIS 25 [Sup Ct, NY County]).

The respondents contend that even though Executive Order (A. Cuomo) No. 202.8 (9 NYCRR 8.202.8) purported to toll the limitations periods, Governor Cuomo did not have the statutory authority to do so, as Executive Law § 29-a, while expressly granting the Governor the authority to suspend statutes, does not expressly grant the Governor the authority to "toll" them. This contention is unpersuasive. As stated above, Executive Law § 29-a(2)(d) provides that an order issued pursuant thereto "may provide for the alteration or modification of the requirements of such statute, local law, ordinance, order, rule or regulation suspended, and may include other terms and conditions." This language in Executive Law § 29-a(2)(d) indicates that the Governor is authorized to do more than just "suspend" statutes during a state disaster emergency; he or she may "alter[ ]" or "modif[y]" the requirements of a statute, and a tolling of time limitations contained in such statute is within that authority (see Foy v State of New York, 71 Misc 3d 605).

[*~584–585]

Furthermore, although the seven executive orders issued after Executive Order (A. Cuomo) No. 202.8 (9 NYCRR 8.202.8) did not use the word "toll," those executive orders all either stated that the Governor "hereby continue[s] the suspensions, and modifications of law, and any directives, not superseded by a subsequent directive," made in the prior executive orders (Executive Order [A. Cuomo] Nos. 202.14, 202.28, 202.38, 202.48 [9 NYCRR 8.202.14, 8.202.28, 8.202.38, 8.202.48]) or contained nearly identical language to that effect (see Executive Order [A. Cuomo] Nos. 202.55, 202.55.1, 202.60 [9 NYCRR 8.202.55, 8.202.55.1, 8.202.60]). Since the tolling of a time limitation contained in a statute constitutes a modification of the requirements of such statute within the meaning of Executive Law § 29-a(2)(d), these subsequent executive orders continued the toll that was put in place by Executive Order (A. Cuomo) No. 202.8 (9 NYCRR 8.202.8).

Therefore, the subject executive orders tolled the time limitation contained in CPLR 5513(a) for the taking of an appeal until November 3, 2020. Accordingly, the notice of appeal, which was served and filed on November 10, 2020, well within 30 days of November 3, 2020, was timely.

In addition, contrary to the respondents' contentions, the order appealed from is appealable as of right, as it decided motions made upon notice and affected a substantial right of the parties (see CPLR 5701[a][2][v]; Parker v Mobil Oil Corp., 16 AD3d 648, affd 7 NY3d 434).

Accordingly, we deny the respective motions to dismiss the appeal.

MASTRO, J.P., RIVERA, CHAMBERS and AUSTIN, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court