Senter v. Gitlitz, 97 A.D.3d 808 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). · Go Syfert
Senter v. Gitlitz, 97 A.D.3d 808 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
2 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Meadowbrook Farms Homeowners Ass'n v. JZG Resources, Inc. (nyappdiv, 2013-04-10)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Meadowbrook Farms Homeowners Ass'n v. JZG Resources, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
A cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract accrues, and the relevant six-year statute of limitations begins to run, at the time of the alleged breach (see CPLR 213 [2]; Senter v Gitlitz, 97 AD3d 808, 808 [2012]). “[W]here a duty imposed prior to a limitations period is a continuing one, the statute of limitations is not a defense to actions based on breaches of that duty occurring within the limitations period” (Westchester County Correction Officers Benevolent Assn., Inc. v County of Westchester, 65 AD3d 1226, 1228 [2009] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Better v W…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Meadowbrook Farms Homeowners Ass'n v. JZG Resources, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
A cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract accrues, and the relevant six-year statute of limitations begins to run, at the time of the alleged breach (see CPLR 213 [2]; Senter v Gitlitz, 97 AD3d 808, 808 [2012]). “[W]here a duty imposed prior to a limitations period is a continuing one, the statute of limitations is not a defense to actions based on breaches of that duty occurring within the limitations period” (Westchester County Correction Officers Benevolent Assn., Inc. v County of Westchester, 65 AD3d 1226, 1228 [2009] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Better v W…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Stewart Senter, Individually and Derivatively on Behalf of American Consumer Shows, Inc., Now Known as ACS Shows, Inc.
v.
Craig Gitlitz
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jul 25, 2012.
97 A.D.3d 808
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published

The defendants moved, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs breach of contract cause of action as time-barred. A breach of contract cause of action accrues, and the relevant six-year statute of limitations begins to run, at the time of the alleged breach (see CPLR 213 [2]; 6D Farm Corp. v Carr, 63 AD3d 903, 907 [2009]). Here, the defendants failed to[*809] establish, prima facie, that the breach of contract cause of action, which alleged the failure to make certain dividend payments within the six-year period prior to commencement of the action, was time-barred (see CPLR 213 [2]; 6D Farm Corp. v Carr, 63 AD3d at 907). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the breach of contract cause of action as time-barred.

The defendants also failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that the cause of action alleging breach of fiduciary duty was time-barred, since the alleged acts upon which the cause of action was predicated occurred in 2009, approximately two years prior to the commencement of the present action (see CPLR 213 [1]; 214 [4]; see generally Carbon Capital Mgt., LLC v American Express Co., 88 AD3d 933 [2011]; Wiesenthal v Wiesenthal, 40 AD3d 1078, 1079-1080 [2007]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court also properly denied that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging breach of fiduciary duty as time-barred.

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Skelos, J.P., Florio, Belen and Sgroi, JJ., concur.