The plaintiff commenced this action on or about April 26, 2016. Therefore, although the applicable statute of limitations for breach of fiduciary duty "depends on the substantive remedy that the plaintiff seeks" (IDT Corp. v Morgan Stanley Dean Winter & Co., 12 N.Y.3d 132, 139), even assuming, without deciding, that a three-year statute of limitations applies (see CPLR 214[4]), the breach of fiduciary duty cause of action is not time-barred (see NM v Estate of Grainger, 171 A.D.3d 1197).
A cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty is governed by a three-year statute of limitations where, as here, the plaintiff seeks money damages only (seeDignelli v. Berman, 293 A.D.2d 565, 565, 741 N.Y.S.2d 66 ). The statute of limitations on a cause of action alleging a breach of fiduciary duty does not begin to run until the fiduciary has openly repudiated his or her obligation or the relationship has been otherwise terminated (seeNM v. Estate of Grainger, 171 A.D.3d 1197, 1198, 99 N.Y.S.3d 89 ). Here, in light of allegations concerning events that took place in 2016 and 2017, the defendants failed to meet their initial burden of demonstrating, prima facie, that the cause of action to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty is time-barred in this action commenced in 2018.
For a breach of fiduciary duty claim, the statute "does not begin to run until the fiduciary has openly repudiated his or her obligation or the relationship has been otherwise terminated" (NM v Estate of Grainger, 171 A.D.3d 1197, 1198 [2d Dept 2019], quoting Loeuis v Grushin, 126 A.D.3d 761, 764 [2d Dept 2015]).