Wimbledon Fin. Master Fund v. Hallac

5 Citing cases

  1. Apollo Glob. Mgmt. v. Cernich

    2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 32187 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2022)

    Finally, dismissal based on a three-year statute of limitations fails is not appropriate. A six-year statute of limitations applies to the plaintiffs' claims because the claims sound primarily in fraud and fraudulent concealment and the plaintiffs are seeking both monetary and equitable relief (Tiny 1, Ltd. v Samfet Marble Inc., 201 A.D.3d 423, 424 [1st Dept 2022]; Kaufman v. Cohen, 307 A.D.2d 113, 119 [1st Dept 2003]; Cusimanov Schnurr, 137 A.D.3d 527, 529 [1st Dept 2016]; Wimbledon Fin. Master Fund, Ltd. v Hallac, 192 A.D.3d 617, 618 [1st Dept 2021]; Homapour v. Harounian, 182 A.D.3d 426, 427 [1st Dept 2020]).

  2. In re Lifetrade Litig.

    17-CV-2987 (JPO) (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 25, 2023)

    See Balta v. Ayco Co., LP, 626 F.Supp.2d 347, 359 (W.D.N.Y. 2009) (“The statute of limitations for a claim of aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty is the same limitations period that would apply to the underlying breach.”); Pomerance v. McGrath, 124 A.D.3d 481, 484, 2 N.Y.S.3d 436 (1st Dep't 2015); Wimbledon Fin. Master Fund, Ltd. v. Hallac, 192 A.D.3d 617, 618, 146 N.Y.S.3d 18 (1st Dep't 2021); Monaghan v. Ford Motor Co., 71 A.D.3d 848, 850, 897 N.Y.S.2d 482, 484 (1st Dep't 2010). Therefore, Plaintiffs' derivative claim against Wells Fargo for aiding and abetting Smith and Marcum's breach of fiduciary duty

  3. Lateral Inv. Mgmt. v. Marcum, LLP

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 33865 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2024)

    The same statute of limitations applies to claims for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty and fraud (see Kaufman, 307 A.D.2d at 126-27; see also Wimbledon Financing Master Fund, Ltd. v Hallac, 192 A.D.3d 617, 618 [1st Dept 2021]; Belair Care Ctr., Inc.vCool Insuring Agency, Inc., 168 A.D.3d 1162, 1166 [3d Dept 2019])], again assuming they are not deemed to be malpractice claims subject to CPLR 214(6).

  4. Hammer v. Heller

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 33658 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2024)   1 Legal Analyses

    The court disagrees. It is true that when a fiduciary duty claim is primarily "based on allegations of actual fraud," the six-year/two-years from discovery limitations period set forth in CPLR 213(8) applies (see Wimbledon Fin. Master Fund, Ltd. v Hallac, 192 A.D.3d 617, 618 [1st Dept 2021). Importantly, however, where fraud allegations are only incidental to the claim asserted, courts will not apply the fraud statute of limitations (see Romanoff, 148 A.D.3d at 616).

  5. Greenwald v. Keren

    2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 32812 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2021)

    but the facts that plaintiff does allege demonstrate that the statute of limitations for such a claim had expired when plaintiff filed and served his.original complaint in September 2016 or at least by the time he, filed and served his proposed amended complaint in June 2017. Where as here plaintiff seeks damages for the breach, the limitations period for both breach of a fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breach of a fiduciary duty is three years, C.P.L.R. § 214(4), unless the breach is fraudulent, in which event the limitations period is six years. C.P.L.R. § 213(8); IDT Corp. v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., 12 N.Y.3d 132, 139 ('2009); Wimbledon Fin. Master Fund, Ltd. v. Hallac, 192 A.D.3d 617, 618 (1st Dep't 2021); Romanoff v. Romanoff, 148 A.D.3d 614, 616 (1st Dep't 2017); Cusimano v. Schnurr, 137.A.D.3d 527, 529-30 (1st Dep't 2016). Thus, if 'the breach was not fraudulent and relates back to the original complaint, the breach must have occurred in September 20, 13 or afterward to be timely.