VA Mgmt., LP v. Estate of Valvani

4 Citing cases

  1. Conahan v. MedQuest Ltd.

    20-cv-1325 (LJL) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 7, 2022)   Cited 8 times

    Id. Under New York law, claims for breach of fiduciary duty seeking monetary damages are subject to a three-year statute of limitations (as opposed to the six-year statute of limitations for claims for equitable relief),see VA Mgmt., LP v. Est. of Valvani, 146 N.Y.S.3d 21, 22 (1st Dep't 2021); Kaufman v. Cohen, 760 N.Y.S.2d 157, 164 (1st Dep't 2003), and generally begin to accrue at the time of breach, see Speedfit LLC v. Woodway USA, Inc., 53 F.Supp.3d 561, 581 (E.D.N.Y. 2014); IDT Corp. v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., 907 N.E.2d 268, 272-73 (N.Y. 2009). “An exception to this standard can be found in the open repudiation doctrine, under which ‘the limitations period for claims arising out of a fiduciary relationship does not commence until the fiduciary has openly repudiated his or her obligation or the relationship has been otherwise terminated.'” Horan v. Vieira, 2021 WL 1200220, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 12, 2021), report and recommendation adopted, 2021 WL 1193146 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2021) (quoting Spinnato v. Unity of Omaha Life Ins. Co., 322 F.Supp.3d 377, 397 (E.D.N.Y. 2018)). However, “[t]he open repudiation doctrine applies only [] to claims for e

  2. Dixie v. Scheer

    2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 30167 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2025)   1 Legal Analyses

    A three-year statute of limitations applies where a plaintiff "seeks purely monetary relief, not equitable relief for which an award of monetary damages would not be adequate." (VA Mgt., LP v Estate of Valvani, 192 A.D.3d 615, 615 [1st Dept 2021].) Where a plaintiff uses "the term 'disgorgement' instead of other equally applicable terms such as repayment, recoupment, refund, or reimbursement," it "should not be permitted to distort the nature of the claim so as to expand the applicable limitations period from three years to six."

  3. Diesenhouse v. Soc. Learning & Payments, Inc.

    20-cv-7436 (LJL) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 3, 2022)   Cited 10 times

    In other words, Plaintiffs' fiduciary duty claim is not based on “actual fraud,” and therefore, even assuming that New York law applied, the six-year statute of limitations for fiduciary claims sounding in fraud would not govern Plaintiffs' claim. Kermanshah v. Kermanshah, 580 F.Supp.2d 247, 262 (S.D.N.Y. 2008); see VA Mgmt., LP v. Est. of Valvani, 146 N.Y.S.3d 21, 23 (1st Dep't 2021) (finding that “Plaintiff's breach of fiduciary duty claim does not sound in fraud to warrant application of the six-year statute of limitations” because Plaintiff fails to allege that it justifiably relied on any misrepresentation). Plaintiffs' claim for breach of fiduciary duty relates to conduct that occurred in April 2016-i.e., the month that Moran accepted full-time employment at KPMG and stopped committing to SLAP on a full-time basis.

  4. Slifka v. Slifka

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 30753 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2024)

    While a three-year statute of limitations generally applies for breach of fiduciary duty claims seeking "purely monetary relief," a six-year statute of limitations applies where the plaintiff is seeking "equitable relief for which an award of monetary damages would not be adequate" (VA Management, LP v Estate cfValvani, 192 A.D.3d 615,615 [ 1 st Dept 2021 ]). The six-year statute of limitations applies to a derivative action seeking both monetary damages and equitable relief (Homapour v Harounian, 182 A.D.3d 426, 428 [1st Dept 2020]).