N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 213

Section 213(4) gives six years to commence an action on a bond or mortgage secured by real property.

Greenpoint Savings Bank v. Kijik · filed 2002-08-26(4)

Similarly here, because the respondent moved to obtain the surplus money more than six years after the appellant defaulted on the second mortgage (see CPLR 213 [4]), its claim is time-barred (see Allerwan Co. v Hermann, supra, but see Dime Sav. Bank of N.Y. v Boklan, 1989 WL 35946 [ED NY]).

Section 213 requires breach of contract actions to be commenced within six years of the breach.

Calcutti v. SBU, INC. · filed 2002-09-16

A breach of contract claim, pursuant to New York law, must be brought within six years of the breach. See CPLR § 213.

CPLR 213(2) requires an action based on a contract to be commenced within six years.

Computer Possibilities Unlimited, Inc. v. Mobil Oil Corp. · filed 2002-09-26(2)

Moreover, because the MicroSource Agreement was executed more than six years before this action was commenced, the action is time-barred to the extent it is based on any breaches of the Endorsement Agreement Mobil allegedly committed prior to the execution of the MicroSource Agreement (see CPLR 213 [2]).

Section 213(8) gives a fraud claim a six-year limitations period measured from when the fraud was perpetrated.

Parlato v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of United States · filed 2002-10-17(8)

The applicable limitation period for a fraud cause of action is six years from the time the fraud was perpetrated (CPLR 213 [8]).

Section 213(2) gives contract actions a six-year limitations period unless an agreement provides otherwise.

Gorsky v. Triou's Custom Homes, Inc. · filed 2002-12-01(2)

The six-year statute of limitations set forth in CPLR 213 (2) therefore governs, absent agreement to the contrary, which is not alleged in this case. As such, this action was timely commenced.

Section 213 gives contract claims a six-year limitations period, barring claims that accrued more than six years before filing.

Madison-Oneida-Herkimer Consortium v. North American Administrators, Inc. · filed 2003-05-19

With regard to defendant’s contention that plaintiff’s breach of contract claim is time-barred, the applicable statute of limitations is six years for contract causes of actions. (CPLR 213.) The action was commenced with the filing of the complaint with the Madison County Clerk on January 28, 2000. Therefore, any of plaintiff’s claims which accrued prior to January 28, 1994 would be time-barred.

Section 213(2) provides a six-year limitations period for contract actions.

Medinol Ltd. v. Boston Scientific Corp. · filed 2004-12-02(2)

BSC’s Seventh affirmative defense alleges that Medinol’s breach of contract claim with respect to NIRKOs is barred by New York’s six-year statute of limitations. N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 213(2). BSC began producing NIRKOs in 1996, and Medinol filed this lawsuit in 2001, fewer than six years later. BSC’s defense is stricken.

Section 213(2) requires an action upon a contractual obligation to be commenced within six years.

In re the Estate of Skeele · filed 2005-03-18(2)

As the claim was not filed until November 11, 2002, it was properly dismissed as time-barred pursuant to CPLR 213 (2).

Section 213 gives breach of contract claims a six-year statute of limitations.

Abf Capital Corp., a Delaware Corporation v. Edward J. Osley, Jr. And Renee Peters · filed 2005-07-12

Here, the California and New York statutes of limitations governing breach of contract claims differ. New York’s statute is six years, whereas California’s statute of limitations is four years. N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 213 (2003); CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 337 (2003).

Section 213 gives contract actions a six-year limitations period.

Jenkins v. State Farm Insurance · filed 2005-08-22

Claims made under the uninsured motorist endorsement of automobile insurance policies are governed by the six-year statute of limitations applicable to contract actions (see Matter of De Luca [Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp.], 17 NY2d 76, 78 [1966]).

Section 213(4) ordinarily bars a mortgage foreclosure action after six years have elapsed since the mortgage became due.

Phalen-Sobolevsky v. Mullin · filed 2006-02-03(4)

Plaintiff met her initial burden on the motion by establishing that more than six years had elapsed since her default when the mortgage became due, and thus that a mortgage foreclosure action commenced by defendant would ordinarily be time-barred (see CPLR 213 [4]; Corrado v Petrone, 139 AD2d 483, 484-485 [1988]).

CPLR 213 (4) bars a mortgage foreclosure claim after six years from default, subject to the circumstances recognized by the court.

Bennardo v. Del Monte Caterers, Inc. · filed 2006-03-14(4)

Under the particular circumstances of this case, the claim to the surplus money by the second mortgagee, Catz, is not time-barred under CPLR 213 (4) (see Dime Sav. Bank of N.Y. v Boklan, 1989 WL 35946, 1989 US Dist LEXIS 3794 [ED NY, Apr. 3, 1989]; In re Garcia, 167 BR 341, 345-346 [1994]).

Section 213(2) requires contract actions to be commenced within six years.

Huynh v. Greene, Brian & Stern Partnership · filed 2006-11-28(2)

Plaintiffs cause of action for breach of contract was barred for any claims arising more than six years prior to commencement of the action (CPLR 213 [2]; see Natimir Rest. Supply v London 62 Co., 140 AD2d 261 [1988]).

Section 213(2) gives breach of contract claims a six-year limitations period, and continuing performance can make each successive breach start the period anew.

Guilbert v. Gardner · filed 2007-03-07(2)

In New York, the Statute of Limitations on a claim for breach of contract is six years. N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 213(2). ... If, however, a contract requires continuing performance over a period of time, each successive breach may begin the statute of limitations running anew. ... Because Defendants’ obligation to contribute $10,000 per year to Plaintiffs pension fund was a continuing one, Plaintiffs claim that Defendants breached that obligation within six years of the commencement of this action is timely.

Section 213(2) requires an action founded on a contractual obligation or liability to be commenced within six years after accrual.

Superb General Contracting Co. v. City of New York · filed 2007-04-03(2)

Pursuant to CPLR 213 (2), an action founded upon a contractual obligation or liability must be commenced within six years of accrual.

Section 213(2) gives a plaintiff six years to bring an action on a contractual obligation, including a claim to recover on a bond.

Morris v. People's Republic of China · filed 2007-03-21(2)

The New York statute of limitations for bringing “an action upon a contractual obligation or liability” is six years.

Section 213(2) bars breach of contract claims for payments made more than six years before a motion to compel arbitration.

Second Presbyterian Church v. Cenpark Realty LLC · filed 2009-09-29(2)

Nevertheless, to the extent Cenpark seeks relief for tax payments made beyond the six-year statute of limitations period for breach of contract claims (CPLR 213 [2]; 7502 [b]), such claims are, accordingly, time-barred (see Matter of Smith Barney, Harris Upham & Co. v Luckie, 85 NY2d 193, 202 [1995], cert denied 516 US 811 [1995]).

CPLR 213 requires a breach of contract action to be commenced within six years after the contractual right to repayment arises.

Lobacz v. Lobacz · filed 2010-04-06

Since the plaintiff failed to commence this action within six years after the occurrence of the first of the triggering events— the sale of the Fire Island properties on or about August 1, 2001—the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as time-barred.

Section 213(2) gives a breach of contract action a six-year limitations period.

Marte v. Graber · filed 2011-03-02(2)

This breach of contract action was timely commenced in accordance with the applicable six-year statute of limitations (see CPLR 213 [2]), as the representation terminated on June 26, 2003 and plaintiffs complaint was filed on or about November 18, 2008.

Section 213(2) gives a plaintiff six years from accrual to bring a contract action, including an action for assigned no-fault benefits.

Flatlands Acupuncture, P.C. v. Fireman's Fund Insurance · filed 2011-04-05(2)

The parties agree that the six-year statute of limitations for contract actions is applicable to the instant case (CPLR 213 [2]; ...). Consequently, the statute of limitations bars any claim that accrued prior to August 29, 2001.

Section 213(2)’s six-year limitation for breach of contract can preclude reliance on a defense premised on an old agreement.

DeLuca v. Pecoraro · filed 2013-08-28(2)

In any event, both the merger doctrine (see Ka Foon Lo v Curis, 29 AD3d 525, 526 [2006]) and the six-year statute of limitations for breach of contract (see CPLR 213 [2]) preclude reliance on any defense premised on the 1982 agreement.

Section 213(2) requires an action on an express or implied contractual obligation to be commenced within six years after the claim arises.

In re Metex Mfg. Corp. · filed 2014-06-13(2)

Under New York Law, “an action upon a contractual obligation or liability, express or implied” must be commenced within six years from the date the claim arose. N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 213(2). ... Thus, IDOR’s claim against Metex for its default under Ken-tile’s 1998 Plan is time-barred under New York law.

Section 213(2) provides a six-year limitations period for breach-of-contract claims; a factual dispute over whether the UCC's four-year period applies can prevent dismissal as untimely.

Calltrol Corp. v. DialConnection, LLC · filed 2016-05-10(2)

Insomuch as Plaintiff has furnished sworn testimony from someone with personal knowledge of the facts stating that the requested monetary damages are not for Plaintiff's prior sale of goods or software to Defendant, there is an issue of fact as to whether the four year limitation period set forth in UCC § 2-725(1) or the six year statute of limitations of CPLR 213(2) applies to Plaintiff's breach of contract cause of action.

Section 213(2) gives a plaintiff six years to bring a breach of contract claim.

King v. New York City Employees Retirement System · filed 2016-07-25(2)

Plaintiff brought the breach of contract claim within six years of the revocation of his Tier 1 benefits by NYCERS.

Section 213(2) gives an action based on a contractual liability or obligation a six-year limitations period.

New York State Workers' Compensation Board v. Any-Time Home Care Inc. · filed 2017-12-07(2)

“[A]n action to recover upon a liability, penalty or forfeiture created or imposed by statute except as provided in [CPLR] 213 and 215” must be commenced within three years of the accrual date (CPLR 214 [2]), while an action based upon a liability or obligation imposed by contract must be commenced within six years (see CPLR 213 [2]). ... However, we agree with Supreme Court that the claims are contractual in nature and, thus, that the action is timely.

Section 213(2) gives six years to bring a contract action, including a claim for breach of corporate bylaws.

Jaquez v. Union Radio Dispatch, Inc. · filed 2018-05-24(2)

Plaintiff Jaquez's claims, which are based on defendant's breach of its bylaws, were correctly dismissed as untimely under the six-year statute of limitations for contract actions ( see Pomerance v McGrath , 124 AD3d 481 [1st Dept 2015], lv dismissed 25 NY3d 1038 [2015]; CPLR 213[2]). Jaquez was expelled from the corporation in May 2005. This action was commenced in or about October 2011, about five months after the statute of limitations had run.

Section 213 bars a breach of contract claim filed more than six years after the underlying debt became due.

Ripka v. Rotter · filed 2018-11-20

The motion court correctly determined that the breach of contract and negligence claims are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations (CPLR 213; 214), because this action was commenced more than six years after the underlying law firm debt became due and more than three years after defendant's alleged negligence occurred in failing to satisfy the debt.

Section 213(2) gives a client six years to bring a breach of contract claim when an attorney performs none of the services for which the client paid.

Mendez v. Robbins · filed 2019-01-04(2)

We note that, contrary to defendant's contention, where, as here, a client claims that an attorney has failed to perform any services for which the client has paid, the claim sounds in breach of contract, which has a six-year statute of limitations ( see CPLR 213 [2]; Reidy v Martin , 77 AD3d 903 [2010]; Marte v Graber , 31 Misc 3d 70 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]), rather than attorney malpractice, which has a three-year statute of limitations ( see CPLR 214 [6]).

Section 213 requires a New York breach of contract action to be commenced within six years after accrual.

Rodriguez v. GB Lodging, LLC · filed 2023-09-14

The parties agree (as they must) that the statute of limitations for a breach of contract action in New York is six years. ... Thus, for either set of claims to be viable, they must have accrued on or after May 26, 2016 -- six years before plaintiff filed his complaint.

Section 213(2) imposes a six-year statute of limitations on breach of contract causes of action.

Five Star Elec. Corp. v. Skanska USA Bldg., Inc. · filed 2023-11-08(2)

The breach of contract cause of action is governed by the terms of the subject contract and is subject to the six-year statute of limitations in CPLR 213(2).

Section 213(2) generally provides a six-year limitations period for breach of contract claims, while parties may agree to a shorter reasonable period.

Camali TV, Inc. v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America · filed 2024-01-02(2)

New York law permits parties to agree to a shorter statute of limitations than the six-year period that typically applies to breach of contract claims.

Section 213(2) gives breach of contract actions a six-year statute of limitations.

Morrow v. Vibration Mountings & Controls, Inc. · filed 2024-01-17(2)

The statute of limitations for a cause of action alleging breach of contract is six years ( see CPLR 213[2]).

Section 213(2) requires breach of contract actions to be brought within six years after the breach.

Markel American Insurance Company v. Mr. Demolition, Inc. · filed 2024-02-14(2)

An action for breach of contract must be brought within six years of the date of the breach. CPLR § 213(2).

Section 213 provides a six-year limitations period for breach of contract claims.

Time Warner Cable Enters. LLC v. Nokia of Am. Corp. · filed 2024-06-18

Under the borrowing statute, plaintiff's claim must be timely under both the statute of limitations of the jurisdiction where plaintiff is a "resident," i.e., Missouri's five-year limitations period for breach of contract claims, and New York's six-year statute of limitations for such claims ( see CPLR 213; see also Global Fin. Corp. v Triarc Corp ., 93 NY2d 525, 528 [1998]; Proforma Partners v Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom , 280 AD2d 303 [1st Dept 2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 722 [2001]).

CPLR 213(2) gives a plaintiff six years from a breach of contract to bring a claim.

Laine v. Empire HealthChoice Assur., Inc. · filed 2025-01-22(2)

Here, the defendant demonstrated, prima facie, that the time within which to assert a breach of contract cause of action had expired, inasmuch as the plaintiff failed to commence this action within the six-year limitations period ( see CPLR 213[2]). The defendant submitted evidence that the plaintiff had last submitted claims for reimbursement in 2012 and that those claims were denied in that same year. Thus, the plaintiff's breach of contract cause of action was untimely when he commenced this action in July 2020.

Section 213(2) applies a six-year limitations period to an action for breach of a contractually implied obligation.

Town of Poland v. Transamerica Insurance · filed 1976-07-02(2)

An analysis of the complaint clearly evidences an action for breach of a contractually implied obligation as opposed to one "sounding in negligence” and, therefore, it is the six-year limitation under CPLR 213 (subd 2) that applies.

Section 213(2) sets a six-year limitations period for contract actions.

Dombrowski v. Somers · filed 1976-01-29(2)

We also find without merit defendant’s contention that, in view of the six-year Statute of Limitations applicable to contract actions (CPLR 213, subd 2), it was reversible error for the trial court to admit testimony regarding plaintiff’s service to decedent more than six years prior to his death. ... Thereafter, the court ruled that there was no estoppel involved and explicitly charged the jury that, should it reach the question of damages, it was to consider only the time from December 24, 1965 to December 24, 1971. In our opinion, these actions by the court removed any possible prejudice to defendants resulting from the admission of the testimony.

Section 213(8) governs the filing period for New York tort fraud claims, not motions to vacate federal judgments for fraud.

LinkCo, Inc. v. Akikusa · filed 2010-02-22(8)

Although LinkCo suggests that the timeliness of its Rule 60 claim should be determined by reference to New York’s six-year statute of limitations for fraud, see N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 213(8), this argument is wholly without merit. “Rule 213(8) governs the time for filing tort claims of fraud under state law, not the time for filing motions to vacate federal judgments due to fraud.” King v. First Am. Investigations, Inc., 287 F.3d 91, 94 (2d Cir. 2002).

Section 213(8) gives fraud claims six years from the act or two years from actual or imputed discovery.

Fiore v. Sibley, Lindsay & Curr Co. · filed 1983-04-01(8)

The Statute of Limitations for fraud is six years from the commission of the act, or two years from the actual or imputed discovery of the fraud (CPLR 213, subd 8; 203, subd [f]; Smith v Sarkisian, 63 AD2d 780, affd 47 NY2d 878).

Section 213(8) applies a six-year limitations period to fraud claims.

Globekirk, Ltd. v. E.D. & F Man 'Coffee' Ltd. · filed 1984-03-08(8)

Respondent’s claim for fraud, however, is not barred by the four-year Statute of Limitations in article 2. Rather, the six-year statute for fraud (CPLR 213, subd 8) applies.

Section 213(8) gives a fraudulent misrepresentation claim a six-year time limit.

Gerber v. Amalgamated Transit Union Division 580 · filed 1984-04-05(8)

New York limits the time to bring a fraudulent misrepresentation claim to six years under CPLR 213 (subd 8). Therefore, plaintiff’s third cause of action, still little more than a year old, is timely.

Subsection (8) gives fraud claims a six-year limitations period from the fraudulent act, with a two-year discovery period for actual fraud.

Del Vecchio v. Nassau County · filed 1986-03-10(8)

A cause of action based upon actual fraud must be commenced six years from the date of the fraudulent act or two years from the date the plaintiff discovered the fraud, or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it, whichever is longer (see, CPLR 213 [8]; 203 [f]; Smith v Sarkisian, 63 AD2d 780, affd 47 NY2d 878). ... Similarly, while the constructive fraud cause of action is governed by a six-year Statute of Limitations which begins to run at the time of the commission of the fraud (see, CPLR 213 [8]; Lapis Enters. v International Blimpie Corp., 84 AD2d 286, 291), a question of fact also exists as to whether the appellants should be equitably estopped from asserting the Statute of Limitations defense (see, Simcuski v Saeli, 44 NY2d 442).

Section 213(8) requires a fraud action to be commenced within six years after accrual or two years after the fraud could reasonably have been discovered.

Bittner v. Cummings · filed 1992-12-14(8)

The plaintiff did not assert a cause of action sounding in fraud in the prior Federal lawsuit, and thus, it was interposed for the first time in late September 1989 which is more than six years after the cause of action accrued, and more than two years after the plaintiff could, with reasonable diligence, have discovered the facts constituting the alleged fraud (see, CPLR 213 [8]; 203 [f]).

Section 213(8) requires fraud claims to be brought within six years of the fraud or within two years after discovery, whichever is longer.

Plaza v. Estate of Wisser · filed 1995-04-25(8)

Claims based on fraud must be commenced either within six years of the time the fraud is committed, or within two years of the time the fraud is or should have been discovered by the plaintiff, whichever period is longer.

Section 213(8) requires fraud actions to be commenced within six years of the fraud or within two years after its discovery or reasonable discoverability, whichever is longer.

Sackman v. Liggett Group, Inc. · filed 1996-05-25(8)

In short, an action based on fraud must be “commenced either within six years of the time the fraud was committed, or within two years of the time the fraud is or should have been discovered, whichever is longer.”

Section 213(8) allows a fraud action to be commenced within six years of accrual or two years of discovery, whichever is longer.

Hellman v. Hoenig & Co. · filed 1997-11-24(8)

There is no merit to the plaintiffs contention that he did not discover, or could not have discovered with reasonable diligence, the falsity of the statements more than two years before the commencement of the action (see, CPLR 213 [8]; Rattner v York, 174 AD2d 718, 721).

Section 213(8) gives fraud claims six years from the wrong or two years from discovery, whichever is longer.

Prestandrea v. Stein · filed 1999-06-28(8)

The Statute of Limitations for fraud is six years from the commission of the wrong or two years from the discovery thereof, whichever is longer (CPLR 213 [8]).

The six-year limitations period for a contract action is not tolled while parties complete a required grievance process unless their agreement provides for tolling.

Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. County of Nassau · filed 2011-06-28(2)

In the absence of a provision in the CBA providing for the tolling of the statute of limitations while the plaintiffs exhausted the grievance process, the mere fact that the CBA required the plaintiffs to exhaust the grievance process before filing suit in state court did not toll the statute of limitations (see Nassau Ch. Civ. Serv. Empls. Assn., Local 830, AFSCME, Local 1000, AFL-CIO v County of Nassau, 154 Misc 2d 545, 552-553 [1992], affd 203 AD2d 267 [1994]; see also Pinder v City of New York, 49 AD3d 280, 281 [2008]).

Section 213(2) gives breach-of-contract claims six years to be filed; factual disputes over equitable tolling can preclude summary judgment on timeliness.

Flight Sciences, Inc. v. Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd. · filed 2009-08-18(2)

Under New York law, the statute of limitations for a breach of contract claim is six years. ... To be clear, the Court is not determining at this point whether FSI has established that it is entitled to equitable tolling of the relevant statutes of limitations. However, there is no doubt that multiple issues of disputed fact exist as to resolving this issue, and on this basis, CPAL’s motion for summary judgment must be denied.

The six-year limitations period applicable to these claims is tolled while a related class action is pending.

Clifton Knolls Sewerage Disposal Co. v. Aulenbach · filed 1982-06-03(2)

Since the Statute of Limitations on each of plaintiff’s claims against defendants was tolled during the pendency of this class action (see Sutton Carpet Cleaners v Fireman’s Ins. Co., 68 NYS2d 218, affd 273 App Div 944, affd 299 NY 646), it is clear that the six-year limitations period applicable to the claims had not expired when the instant actions were commenced on March 23, 1978.

Section 213 requires covered actions to be commenced within six years, subject to rules governing when the limitations period begins or is tolled.

1980-04-11 · filed 1980-04-11

Although defendants did not raise such a defense initially, they were permitted during trial to amend their answer to add the assertion that Valle's claim accrued no later than December 9, 1969 and that his suit, commenced on May 8, 1978, is barred by the six-year statute of limitations provided by New York CPLR § 213. This defense was properly rejected by the district court ... Defendants' 1969 letters, had there been no further communications, would have stood as a clear repudiation, sufficient to start the period of limitations. ... Thus, whether the period of limitations began anew on September 12, 1974, as found by the district court, or was merely tolled from February 5, 1971 to September 12, 1974, Valle's suit was timely commenced.

Section 213 sets a six-year deadline for covered actions, subject to tolling or equitable estoppel when the limitations period has not properly begun or a defendant cannot fairly invoke it.

Valle v. Joint Plumbing Industry Board · filed 1980-04-11

As to Valle, defendants also argue that his claim is barred by the statute of limitations. Although defendants did not raise such a defense initially, they were permitted during trial to amend their answer to add the assertion that Valle’s claim accrued no later than December 9, 1969 and that his suit, commenced on May 8, 1978, is barred by the six-year statute of limitations provided by New York CPLR § 213. This defense was properly rejected by the district court. ... The period within which a trust beneficiary may sue to compel the trustee to perform his duties begins when there has been “a repudiation by the fiduciary which is clear and made known to the beneficiaries . . . viewed in the light of the circumstances of the particular case.” ... The defendants having thus lulled Valle into the belief, for a 3‘/2 year period, that a lawsuit might not be necessary, they are equitably es-topped from relying on that period in order to invoke the bar of the statute of limitations. ... Thus, whether the period of limitations began anew on September 12, 1974, as found by the district court, or was merely tolled from February 5, 1971 to September 12, 1974, Valle’s suit was timely commenced.

Section 213 allows suit for annual pension payments due within the six years before the action begins, with the period running separately from each missed payment.

Medalie v. Jacobson · filed 1986-05-19

The Statute of Limitations therefore begins to run at the time of the failure to make each payment, and the plaintiff can sue for any payments due within the six years prior to the commencement of the suit (see, Matter of Philippe, 31 Misc 2d 193, affd 19 AD2d 587, affd 14 NY2d 600; CPLR 213).

Section 213(2) applies a six-year limitations period to the loan claim, beginning when repayment becomes due.

Anthony Marino Construction Corp. v. F. & J. Sales Corp. · filed 1980-06-12(2)

Since the repayment date of the loan was July 9, 1973, the six-year Statute of Limitations began to run on that date. (CPLR 213, subd 2.) As Special Term held, service on both defendants was properly made within the six years.

Section 213(6) requires an action to foreclose a mortgage upon real property to be commenced within six years.

Bank of New York Central Region v. Cain · filed 1980-11-13(6)

While we agree that an action for reformation was time barred and thus was properly dismissed, we cannot agree that the cause of action for foreclosure should have been dismissed.

Section 213(6) bars an action based on mistake from being commenced more than six years after the lease was executed.

Black v. Mill Road Associates · filed 1982-01-25(6)

Since mistake is the gravamen of these causes of action, they are barred because the action was commenced more than six years after the lease was executed (CPLR 213, subd 6).

Section 213(7) provides a six-year limitations period for an action on behalf of a corporation.

Rupert v. Tigue · filed 1999-03-19(7)

Thus, this is “an action * * * on behalf of a corporation” governed by CPLR 213 (7), and the six-year period of limitations applies.

Section 213(2) requires actions on contractual obligations or liabilities to be commenced within six years.

ABF Capital Corp. v. Berglass · filed 2005-06-28(2)

As the trial court correctly found, New York law—including its pertinent statute of limitations—applies and demonstrates that the appropriate six-year limitations period (N. Y. C.P.L.R. § 213(2)) bars prosecution of plaintiff's action.

Subdivision (4) requires an action to recover on a mortgage note to be commenced within six years after the note matures.

Sarva v. Chakravorty · filed 2006-11-08(4)

Accordingly, this action to recover on the note was timely commenced within six years after the note matured, and the trial court properly denied the defendants’ application to dismiss the action as time-barred (see CPLR 213 [4]).

Section 213(2) gives six years to commence an action to recover on a promissory note, measured from accrual at execution.

Lynford v. Williams · filed 2006-11-28(2)

Pursuant to CPLR 213 (2), the plaintiff had six years within which to commence this action to recover on the note. Moreover, the cause of action to recover on this note accrued at the time of its execution on August 16, 1998 (see Schleifer v Schlass, 303 AD2d 204 [2003]; Shelley v Dixon Equities, 300 AD2d 566 [2002]; Shelley v Shelley, 299 AD2d 405, 406 [2002]; Skiadas v Terovolas, 271 AD2d 521 [2000]). Accordingly, this action, having been commenced more than six years after the execution of the note, was time-barred.

Section 213(2) gives breach of contract claims a six-year limitations period, measured from the breach even if damage occurs later or the claimant is unaware of the wrong.

Kaul v. Brooklyn Friends Sch. · filed 2023-10-25(2)

A cause of action sounding in breach of contract is governed by a six-year statute of limitations ( see CPLR 213[2]; Rabinowitz v Grosso , 216 AD3d 822, 822-823). The period "begins at the time of the breach, even when no damage occurs until later, and even though the injured party may be ignorant of the existence of the wrong or injury" ( Houtenbos v Fordune Assn., Inc. , 200 AD3d 662, 666; see Ely-Cruikshank Co. v Bank of Montreal , 81 NY2d 399, 402).

CPLR 213(1) sets a six-year limitations period that begins when the wrongful event occurs.

Bey Construction Co. v. Yablonski · filed 1980-06-16(1)

The period of limitations commences at the time of the wrongful event (Scheuer v Scheuer, supra; Savage v Savage, 63 AD2d 808). It is clear that the transfer of property to the appellant did not per se constitute a wrongful act for the purposes of the Statute of Limitations. Rather, the causes of action stem from the alleged breach of the implied trust relationship and necessarily, it is the time when the relationship was allegedly breached that marks the beginning of the period of limitations (cf. Rickerman v Rickerman, 34 AD2d 1069).

The six-year limitations period runs from when the cause of action becomes enforceable, after the insured's death.

Carlin v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of United States · filed 1981-05-14

Since payment is not due until after the death of the insured, a beneficiary cannot properly sue for the proceeds to be received under the policy until the time for performance has arrived (see Kelly v Security Mut. Life Ins. Co., 186 NY 16, 19). Plaintiff’s suit for the proceeds having been commenced within six years of her husband’s death, it was not barred by the Statute of Limitations (CPLR 213).

Section 213 provides a six-year limitations period for the action at issue, running from when the claim accrued.

Warren v. Warren · filed 1981-06-22subd 1

Defendant raises the Statute of Limitations defense, contending that the cause of action arose in 1969 when he failed to change the account into a joint account, and that it was therefore time barred under CPLR 213 (subd 1) when this action was commenced on September 30,1976. Special Term rejected this contention, holding that defendant did not breach his obligation until some time in 1976. We agree with Special Term that defendant did not repudiate his obligation until he failed to comply with plaintiff’s demand, made during the course of the divorce proceedings, to reconvey to plaintiff a portion of the funds in the savings account. ... Accordingly, the Statute of Limitations was not a valid defense.

Section 213(2) provides a six-year limitations period that begins when the cause of action accrues.

State v. Peerless Insurance · filed 1986-05-29(2)

The Statute of Limitations generally begins to run when a plaintiff possesses the legal right to be paid and to enforce its right to payment in court ... Since Good Spirits’ default is the condition which gave rise to a cause of action against defendant, we must determine when that default occurred. ... Hence, the default occurred 90 days after the issuance of the notice of determination, and the Statute of Limitations commenced running at that time. ... Plaintiffs commenced this action on May 10, 1983, within six years of the accrual of the cause of action. Accordingly, the cause of action is not time barred as to the $86,890.86 deficiency of Good Spirits.

Section 213(1) supplies the six-year limitations period, whose start date depends on the nature of the fiduciary misconduct and may be delayed until repudiation of fiduciary obligations.

In re the Estate of Sakow · filed 1990-02-28(1)

Although dicta can be found to support movant’s position (see, Lammer v Stoddard, 103 NY 672), it is much too broad a statement. Since a person can be classified as a fiduciary ex maleficio as a product of radically different sets of circumstances, it is appropriate for different rules to be applied depending upon the nature of the act or acts forming the gravamen of the claim. Specifically, there is a basis to apply a different rule depending upon whether there was one initial wrongful act, whether title was properly acquired but wrongfully retained or whether the alleged fiduciary continuously acted as or pretended to be the lawful fiduciary of the estate and only contended otherwise when called upon to account as lawful fiduciary. The following rules set forth the time that the Statute of Limitations begins to run: from the wrongful taking of title in the first instance, from the wrongful refusal to reconvey title in the second instance and in the third instance, not until there has been an open and notorious repudiation of his fiduciary obligations. ... This court also finds that a plea to be relieved of the accounting responsibilities and the Statute of Limitations applicable to a de jure fiduciary should not be entertained when it comes from the mouth of one who was willing to act as if he were the de jure fiduciary when he deemed it advantageous to himself.

The six-year limitations period begins when the executors repudiate further obligations by presenting final accounts and obtaining releases.

In re Goldstick · filed 1992-02-27(1)

It is also clear that at least with respect to Levine, the six-year Statute of Limitations (CPLR 213 [1]) commenced to run in 1976 when the executors repudiated any further obligations to the Tananbaum estate (see, Matter of Barabash, 31 NY2d 76) by presenting their final accounts to, and obtaining releases from, the objectants (see, Matter of Mathewson, 264 App Div 939).

For an action on a demand note, the six-year limitations period begins when the note is executed.

Estate of Bonis v. Djabbarzadeh · filed 1997-12-01

The plaintiff does not dispute that the note in question was a demand note such that, under New York law, the six-year limitations period on an action to recover on the note began running at the time of its execution (see, CPLR 213; Phoenix Acquisition Corp. v Campcore, Inc., 81 NY2d 138, 143; Bank of N. Y. v Bersani, 90 AD2d 302).

Section 213's six-year limitations period for this claim begins when a fiduciary is appointed for the estate.

In re the Estate of Bustamante · filed 1998-12-16

The relevant six-year Statute of Limitations (CPLR 213) runs from the date of appointment of a fiduciary for the estate (see, Matter of Holmes, supra; Matter of Alton, 55 Misc 2d 985; Matter of Cudahy, supra; cf., Glamm v Allen, 57 NY2d 87).

Subsection (2) provides a six-year limitations period that begins when the plaintiff makes the guaranteed payment.

Liquidation of Union Indemnity Insurance v. Wong · filed 2005-09-27(2)

Assuming the waiver is ineffective as against the statute of limitations, the action was timely commenced in April 1999, well within the six-year limitations period that began to run upon plaintiff’s payment of the $85,000 to the obligee in February 1998 (CPLR 213 [2]; see Matter of American Druggists’ Ins. Co., 15 AD3d 268 [2005], lv dismissed 5 NY3d 746 [2005]).

Section 213 sets a six-year limitations period for enforcing a trustee’s obligations, running from repudiation or, for a former trustee who has not repudiated, after a reasonable time to account has passed.

In re of a Trust Established By Singer · filed 2006-01-27

A trust relationship is “repudiated” where the putative fiduciary denies having had, or having retained, any fiduciary obligation with respect to the property in question, including the duty to account (see, e.g., Roediger v Kraft, 169 App Div 304 [1915]; Matter of Ashheim, 111 App Div 176 [1906], affd 185 NY 609 [1906]). ... In other words, the statute of limitations can begin to run on the beneficiary’s right to an accounting only where the former fiduciary has failed to have accounted after a reasonable time to do so has passed (see Gilmore v Ham, 142 NY 1, 9 [1894]).

Section 213(4)’s six-year foreclosure period does not begin to run on the entire mortgage when a default letter says only that acceleration may occur.

Goldman Sachs Mortgage Co. v. Mares · filed 2016-01-14(4)

Accordingly, we agree with Supreme Court’s determination that the June 2007 letter did not commence the running of the statute of limitations and, thus, plaintiff’s March 2014 foreclosure action is not time-barred.

Section 213(1) provides a six-year catch-all limitations period when no more specific statutory period applies, but it does not apply to a declaratory judgment action governed by a specific limitations period.

Press v. County of Monroe · filed 1980-07-01(1)

In that event there is a limitation specifically prescribed by law and the catch-all provision of CPLR 213 (subd 1) is not applicable.

CPLR 213(1) supplies a catch-all limitation period when no specific limitation period applies.

Mantello v. City of Troy · filed 1997-03-06(1)

In the absence of a specific limitation period the "catch-all” provision of CPLR 213 (1) is found to apply (see, Solnick v Whalen, supra, at 230).

CPLR 213(1) provides a catch-all limitations period when no specific limitations period applies.

Aubin v. State · filed 2001-04-19(1)

If that inquiry is answered in the affirmative, the specific limitations period identified will govern rather than the catch-all limitations period set forth in CPLR 213 (1).

Section 213(2) applies to claims seeking damages for breach of contract.

Van Hoesen v. Hogan · filed 1980-11-12(2)

CPLR 214 (subd 4) is inapplicable to plaintiff’s cause of action against Millers, since that statute relates to limitations of actions to recover for injury to property. Plaintiff seeks damages from Millers for breach of contract. (CPLR 213, subd 2; see General Construction Law, § 25-b.)

Section 213 provides a six-year limitations period for a breach of construction contract, running from completion of the contract.

Watt v. Irish · filed 2000-04-24

Rather, plaintiffs’ claim is governed by CPLR 213 which provides a six-year Statute of Limitations for a cause of action for breach of a construction contract which began to run upon the completion of the contract on May 1, 1992.

Section 213(2) requires an action for breach of contract to be commenced within six years.

Mauro v. Niemann Agency, Inc. · filed 2003-03-10(2)

The statute of limitations for a breach of contract is six years (see CPLR 213 [2]).

Section 213(2) gives breach-of-contract claims a six-year limitations period.

Squeri v. Moriches Associates, Inc. · filed 2003-07-07(2)

Since the second cause of action is based on breach of contract, it is governed by the six-year statute of limitations applicable to contract actions (see CPLR 213 [2]).

Section 213(2) provides the six-year limitations period for breach of contract claims against aircraft mechanics.

Parker v. Leonard · filed 2005-12-22(2)

Therefore, actions against aircraft mechanics are governed by the “limitations periods applicable to negligence actions (CPLR 214 [4]) and breach of contract actions (CPLR 213 [2])” (id. at 30-31), and not the limitations period applicable to malpractice actions (see CPLR 214 [6]).

Section 213(2) gives a plaintiff six years from the breach to bring a breach-of-contract claim.

Adames v. Velasquez · filed 2008-04-01(2)

In regard to the causes of action for breach of contract, CPLR 213 (2), a six-year statute of limitations, controls (see Gibraltar Mgt. Co., Inc. v Grand Entrance Gates, Ltd., 46 AD3d 747 [2d Dept 2007]), and the causes of action began to run from the time of the breach in November 2001 (see Mainline Elec. Corp. v East Quogue Union Free School Dist., 46 AD3d 859 [2d Dept 2007]).

Section 213(2) sets a six-year period for breach-of-contract actions, which parties may shorten by a reasonable written agreement.

Fabozzi v. Lexington Insurance · filed 2009-01-08(2)

New York imposes a six-year statute of limitations for plaintiffs seeking to file an action based upon an alleged breach of contract. ... However, “parties to a contract may agree to shorter limitations periods, which are normally enforceable when they are reasonable and in writing.”

Section 213(2) gives a plaintiff six years to commence a breach of contract action.

Tanger v. 114 East 32nd Realty Corp. · filed 2009-02-17(2)

Since the property was refinanced in 1986, plaintiffs time to commence this breach of contract action expired in 1992 (see CPLR 213 [2]).

Section 213(2) provides a six-year limitations period for breach-of-contract claims.

John J. Fiero & Fiero Bros. v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. · filed 2009-04-02(2)

Instead, FINRA’s claim is governed by the six-year statute of , limitations provided by N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 213(2) to govern breach of contract claims. Because FINRA’s counterclaim was filed less than six years after the disciplinary decision became final, it is not time-barred.

Section 213(2) governs the limitations period for breach of contract claims.

Prince Seating Corp. v. QBE Insurance · filed 2009-05-12(2)

Further, the cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract was not time-barred (see CPLR 213 [2]).

Section 213(2) sets a six-year limitations period for breach of contract claims.

Splinters, Inc. v. Greenfield · filed 2009-06-02(2)

Applying the six-year ... statute of limitations for breach of contract causes of action established by CPLR 213 (2), the 2006 action is untimely.

Section 213(2) gives a breach of contract claim six years from the breach to be commenced.

6D Farm Corp. v. Carr · filed 2009-06-16(2)

A breach of contract cause of action accrues, and the relevant six-year statute of limitations begins to run, at the time of the breach (see CPLR 213 [2]; Ely-Cruikshank Co. v Bank of Montreal, 81 NY2d 399, 402 [1993]; St. George Hotel Assoc. v Shurkin, 12 AD3d 359, 360 [2004]).

Section 213(2) gives a breach of contract claim six years from the alleged breach to be commenced.

Tom Greenauer Development, Inc. v. Burke Bros. Construction, Inc. · filed 2010-06-11(2)

The submissions of Burke Brothers and the individual defendants in support of the cross motion raise triable issues of fact whether that breach occurred in 1999 and thus whether the action, commenced in 2004, is timely with respect to that part of the breach of contract cause of action (see CPLR 213 [2]).

Section 213 provides a six-year limitations period for breach of contract claims.

Kent v. 534 East 11th Street · filed 2010-10-28

However, the plaintiffs breach of contract claims, while within the six-year statute of limitations of CPLR 213, must fail because, as the defendants correctly assert, the contract to which the plaintiff refers, that is, the proprietary lease, is not before the Court.

Section 213(2) sets a six-year limitations period for breach of contract actions.

National Urban Ventures, Inc. v. City of Niagara Falls · filed 2010-11-12(2)

The statute of limitations for a breach of contract action is six years (see CPLR 213 [2]), and the statute of limitations generally begins to run “from the time the cause of action accrued” (CPLR 203 [a]).

Section 213(2) sets a six-year limitations period for breach-of-contract claims.

Marvel Worldwide, Inc. v. Kirby · filed 2010-11-22(2)

New York has a six-year statute of limitations for breach-of-contract claims. N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 213(2).

Section 213(2) gives a breach of contract claim a six-year limitations period.

New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance v. Glider Oil Co. · filed 2011-12-30(2)

The statute of limitations for a breach of contract cause of action is six years (see CPLR 213 [2]).

Section 213(2) gives six years from accrual to file a breach-of-contract claim.

Muto v. CBS Corp. · filed 2012-02-01(2)

Under New York law, a claim for breach of contract must be filed within six years of when the claim accrues. N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 213(2).

Section 213(2) imposes a six-year statute of limitations on breach of contract claims.

Stefatos v. Frezza · filed 2012-05-31(2)

The breach of contract claim that was dismissed is barred by the six-year statute of limitations (CPLR 213 [2]), since the last of the projects at issue was completed by 2003 and plaintiffs did not commence this action until 2010.

Section 213(2)'s six-year limitations period for breach of contract begins when the alleged breach occurs.

Senter v. Gitlitz · filed 2012-07-25(2)

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]).

Section 213(2) sets a six-year limitations period for breach of contract claims.

Themis Capital, LLC v. Democratic Republic of Congo · filed 2012-07-26(2)

The applicable statute of limitations for breach of contract in New York is six years.

Section 213 provides a six-year limitations period for breach-of-contract claims.

Douglas v. New York State Adirondack Park Agency · filed 2012-09-11

Except for the breach of contract claim (which is governed by a six-year limitations period set forth in N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 213), each of those claims is governed by the one-year limitations period set forth in N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 215.

Section 213(2) gives a party six years to bring a breach of contract claim, including one seeking specific performance.

Lia v. Saporito · filed 2012-11-06(2)

The Lia parties’ first cause of action seeking specific performance of the 2003 and 2006 Agreements is a claim for breach of contract governed by the six (6)-year statute of limitations under Section 213(2) of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules.

Section 213(2) bars a breach of contract claim brought more than six years after the breach, even if damages arise later.

Chelsea Piers L.P. v. Hudson River Park Trust · filed 2013-05-02(2)

In any event, since the Act became effective in 1998, plaintiffs claims, brought in 2011, are still time-barred (see CPLR 213 [2]).

Section 213(2)’s six-year period for contract claims is not extended by equitable tolling or estoppel when the plaintiff learns of the breach in time to investigate and sue.

Zhang v. Schlatter · filed 2014-01-02(2)

Nor can plaintiffs benefit from equitable tolling or estoppel. Even assuming that the OraLabs Defendants fraudulently concealed their breach in December 2005, plaintiffs unquestionably were aware of the breach in April 2006 when the transaction between OraLabs, Inc. and CPSI was publicly announced and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which provided plaintiffs with sufficient time to investigate and timely file their claims for breach of contract by December 2011.

Section 213(2) provides a six-year limitations period for actions to recover damages for breach of contract.

Livingston v. En-Consultants, Inc. · filed 2014-03-05(2)

An action to recover damages for breach of contract is governed by a six-year statute of limitations period (see CPLR 213 [2]), while an action alleging professional malpractice, with the exception of medical, dental, or podiatric malpractice, is governed by a three-year statute of limitations period regardless of whether the underlying theory is based in contract or tort (see CPLR 214 [6]; Castle Oil Corp. v Thompson Pension Empl. Plans, 299 AD2d 513, 514 [2002]).

Section 213(2) allows six years to bring a breach of contract claim, measured from the breach even if it is not continuing.

Clark v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority · filed 2013-12-20(2)

Even if respondents’ continued refusal to provide petitioners with the claimed pension entitlements, despite respondents’ subsequent oral assurances to petitioners, does not amount to a continuing breach, and the breach occurred when petitioners’ employment commenced in July 2005, their claims, filed in June 2011, are timely.

Section 213(2) gives a plaintiff six years to bring a breach of contract claim.

Barr v. Denton · filed 2014-05-15(2)

The court also correctly found the claim to be barred by the applicable six-year statute of limitations (CPLR 213 [2]), and not viable based upon the documentary evidence. Specifically, this action was commenced in 2010 and plaintiffs allegations of breach prior to 2004 are not timely.

Section 213(2) provides a six-year limitations period for a breach-of-contract claim based on a payment that became due.

Matter of Perelman · filed 2014-12-04(2)

Further, any claim for breach of contract based on the 1990 transaction would have become time-barred in 2001, six years after the last installment payment for decedent’s fractional share of Hudson stock became due in 1995 (see CPLR 213 [2]), and, in any event, such a contractual cause of action would not confer a right to possession of specific personal property or money, as is required to invoke SCPA 2103 (see Castaldo, 180 AD2d at 421).

Section 213 gives breach of contract claims a six-year limitations period; a limitations defense may be premature when alleged concealment leaves the time of discovery unresolved.

Elsevier Inc. v. Memon · filed 2015-03-23

In New York, the statute of limitations for breach of contract claims is six years. See N.Y. CPLR § 213. ... The Court already determined that the Complaint sets forth facts showing that Defendants took steps to conceal their scheme and neither party can estimate, at this juncture, when Plaintiffs discovered Defendants’ conduct. Therefore, the Memon Defendants’ statute of limitations argument is premature.

Section 213 gives six years to bring a breach of contract claim; for a construction contract, the claim accrues upon substantial completion of the work.

Nassau County v. New York State Urban Development Corp. · filed 2015-03-30

The statute of limitations for breach of contract is six years (CPLR 213). With construction contracts, a cause of action for breach of contract accrues upon substantial completion of the work (Superb Gen. Contr. Co. v City of New York, 39 AD3d 204 [1st Dept 2007], citing Phillips Constr. Co. v City of New York, 61 NY2d 949 [1984]; State of New York v Lundin, 60 NY2d 987 [1983]).

Section 213(2) sets a six-year limitations period for breach-of-contract claims.

Kimso Apartments, LLC v. Gandhi · filed 2015-06-03(2)

The subject counterclaim sounds in breach of contract, i.e., the settlement agreement, and therefore, is subject to a six-year statute of limitations (see CPLR 213 [2]).

Section 213(2) sets a six-year limitations period for breach of contract actions.

Jang Ho Choi v. Beautri Realty Corp. · filed 2016-01-07(2)

Nevertheless, we affirm the dismissal of the action on the ground that it is barred by the statute of limitations on breach of contract actions. More than six years have elapsed since plaintiff exercised his option and defendant refused to comply, in June 2007 (see CPLR 213 [2]; Ely-Cruikshank Co. v Bank of Montreal, 81 NY2d 399 [1993]).

Section 213(2) sets a six-year limitations period for actions to recover damages for breach of contract.

Doukas v. Ballard · filed 2016-01-27(2)

An action to recover damages for breach of contract is governed by a six-year statute of limitations period (see CPLR 213 [2]).

Section 213(2) sets a six-year limitations period for breach-of-contract claims.

Building Exterior Servs. Trust of N.Y. v. A.W. Farrell & Son, Inc. · filed 2016-03-16(2)

In view of these conclusions, defendant's statute-of-limitations defense must be rejected. The statute of limitations for a breach-of-contract cause of action is six years (CPLR 213 [2]), and the claim "accrues at the time of the breach" (Ely-Cruikshank Co. v Bank of Montreal, 81 NY2d 399, 402-403 [1993] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see CPLR 203 [a]).

CPLR 213 (2) provides a six-year limitations period for a claim that attorneys charged fees in violation of an express retainer agreement.

Stewart v. Berger · filed 2016-03-23(2)

The third cause of action alleged that the defendants charged the plaintiff excessive fees in violation of the express terms of the parties’ retainer agreement, stating a contract claim subject to the six-year limitations period of CPLR 213 (2).

CPLR 213 provides a six-year limitations period for breach of contract claims.

Evans v. Deposit Central School District · filed 2016-05-05

... plaintiffs' claim falls safely within the six-year statute of limitations applicable to breach of contract claims, as plaintiffs commenced this action less than a year after learning of the ratification of the new CBA and paying their premiums "under protest" (see CPLR 213).

Section 213(2) gives a party six years to bring a breach of contract action; an agreement cannot delay accrual through an imprecise discovery rule.

Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Flagstar Capital Markets Corp. · filed 2016-08-11(2)

Notwithstanding the parties’ sophistication and their assent to a contract provision specifying a set of conditions that would have delayed the cause of action’s accrual, we find that the accrual provision is unenforceable as against public policy, because it is tantamount to extending the statute of limitations based on an imprecise “discovery” rule, which the Court of Appeals has consistently rejected in the commercial sphere (see id. at 593-594). ... Therefore, we affirm the motion court’s dismissal of the action as barred by the six-year statute of limitations applicable to breach of contract actions (CPLR 213 [2]).

Section 213(2) does not bar an entire breach of partnership agreement claim when alleged breaches occurred within its limitations period.

Katz v. Beil · filed 2016-09-14(2)

Contrary to the court’s conclusion, it cannot be said at this juncture that this proposed cause of action is wholly time-barred since, among other things, allegations in the proposed second amended complaint relate to breaches of the partnership agreement that were alleged to have occurred within the applicable statute of limitations period (see CPLR 213 [2]; see also Manhattanville Coll. v James John Romeo Consulting Engr., P.C., 5 AD3d 637, 641 [2004]).

Section 213(2) gives six years to sue for breach of contract, beginning when the breach occurs.

Alpha Phi Alpha Senior Citizens' Ctr., Inc. v. Zeta Zeta Lambda Co., Inc. · filed 2016-09-21(2)

Second, CPLR 213(2), a six-year statute of limitations, controls a cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract ( see, Chi Kee Pang v. Synlyco, Ltd. , 89 AD3d 976 ), and the period begins to run at the time the cause of action accrues, that is , at the time of the breach ( see, Yarbro v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. , 140 AD3d 668 ). In the case at bar, the cause of action for breach of the alleged agreement to pay income to the senior citizens center accrued in 2011 or 2012 when the defendant company refused payment, not in 1997 when the requirement was deleted from the certificate of incorporation.

Section 213(2) gives six years to bring a breach of contract claim, beginning when the breach occurs.

Alpha Phi Alpha Senior Citizens Center, Inc. v. Zeta Zeta Lambda Co. · filed 2016-09-21(2)

Second, CPLR 213 (2), a six-year statute of limitations, controls a cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract (see Chi Kee Pang v Synlyco, Ltd., 89 AD3d 976 [2011]), and the period begins to run at the time the cause of action accrues, that is, at the time of the breach (see Yarbro v Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 140 AD3d 668 [2016]).

CPLR 213(2) sets a six-year limitations period for breach of contract actions.

2138747 Ontario, Inc. v. Samsung C&T Corp. · filed 2016-10-11(2)

New York’s general statute of limitations for a breach of contract action is six years (CPLR 213 [2]).

Section 213(2) requires a breach of contract action to be commenced within six years after the claim accrues.

MORAN, JAMES J. v. JRM CONTRACTING, INC. · filed 2016-12-23(2)

Defendant established that the action was commenced more than six years after the breach of contract cause of action accrued and was therefore time-barred (see CPLR 213 [2]; Mongardi v BJ’s Wholesale Club, Inc., 45 AD3d 1149, 1150).

Section 213(2) sets a six-year limitations period for breach of contract and breach of good faith and fair dealing claims.

State of New York Workers' Compensation Board v. Wang · filed 2017-01-05(2)

Beginning with plaintiff's first cause of action for breach of contract, as well as its second and third causes of action for breach of good faith and fair dealing, we agree with Supreme Court that such claims are time-barred by the applicable six-year statute of limitations to the extent that the alleged breaches occurred before July 8, 2005 (see CPLR 203 [a]; 213 [2]; see also Town of Oyster Bay v Lizza Indus., Inc., 22 NY3d 1024, 1030 [2013]; Kosowsky v Willard Mtn., Inc., 90 AD3d 1127, 1131 [2011]; Liberman v Worden, 268 AD2d 337, 339 [2000]).

CPLR 213(2) allows six years from breach to bring a breach-of-contract claim.

Multibank, Inc. v. Access Global Capital LLC · filed 2017-01-09(2)

While the Besch Defendants question whether section 5.1 is enforceable under New York law [ see John J. Kassner & Co. v City of New York , 46 NY2d 544, 550 (1979)], that is irrelevant since, under CPLR 213(2), Multibank's claim for breach of the FFC is timely because it was brought within 6 years of breach.

Section 213(2) gives breach of contract claims six years from the breach to be commenced.

Belair Care Ctr., Inc. v. Cool Insuring Agency, Inc. · filed 2017-05-04(2)

The statute of limitations for a breach of contract claim is six years (CPLR 213 [2]), and the "cause of action accrues at the time of the breach" ( Ely-Cruikshank Co. v Bank of Montreal , [*10] 81 NY2d 399, 402 [1993]; see CPLR 203 [a]).

Section 213(2) gives breach-of-contract claims a six-year limitations period; claims for breaches more than six years before the claim was interposed are time-barred.

New York State Workers' Compensation Bd. v. Compensation Risk Mgrs., LLC · filed 2017-12-14(2)

The statute of limitations for the breach-of-contract claim is six years (CPLR 213 [2]), and the claim "accrues at the time of the breach," even where damages from the breach are not sustained until later and the "injured party [is] ignorant of the existence of the wrong or injury" ( Ely-Cruikshank Co. v Bank of Montreal , 81 NY2d 399, 402-403 [1993] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see CPLR 203 [a]). ... Thus, under the applicable six-year limitations period, the WCB may pursue claimed breaches of contract on and after March 14, 2007.

Section 213(2) requires a breach-of-contract action to be commenced within six years of the breach.

Huss v. Rucci Oil Co., Inc. · filed 2017-12-22(2)

A cause of action alleging breach of contract must be commenced within six years of the breach of the agreement ( see CPLR 213 [2]; Barnard Coll. v Tishman Constr. Corp. of NY , 261 AD2d 193 [1999]; Benson v Boston Old Colony Ins. Co. , 134 AD2d 214, 215 [1987]; Varga v Credit-Suisse , 5 AD2d 289, 292 [1958], affd 5 NY2d 865 [1958]).

Section 213(2) sets the limitations period for a breach of contract claim; a claim brought before it expires is timely.

Berkeley Research Group, LLC v. FTI Consulting, Inc. · filed 2018-01-11(2)

FTI does not contend that the proposed claim is palpably insufficient, and, because the statute of limitations had not yet run on this breach of contract claim, BRG could have brought it as a separate action, without any need for a showing of merit ( see CPLR 213[2]).

Section 213(2) sets a six-year limitations period for breach-of-contract claims.

CDx Labs., Inc. v. Zila, Inc. · filed 2018-06-27(2)

A cause of action alleging breach of contract is governed by a six-year statute of limitations ( see CPLR 213[2]) and accrues at the time of the alleged breach ( see Hahn Automotive Warehouse, Inc. v American Zurich Ins. Co., 18 NY3d 765).

Section 213(2) provides a six-year limitations period for breach of contract claims.

Miller v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company · filed 2019-09-17(2)

The statute of limitations for Plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim ran six years after MetLife allegedly defaulted Plaintiffs to the smoker status in 2000.

Section 213(2) sets a six-year limitations period for breach of contract claims.

Commerce Point Capital, Inc. v. First Data Corporation · filed 2019-12-20(2)

The statute of limitations for a breach of contract under New York law is six years. N.Y. C.P.L.R § 213(2).

Section 213(2) gives breach of contract claims a six-year limitations period.

MIHRANIAN v. KALKIN · filed 2020-01-15(2)

Breach of contract claims are governed by a six-year statute of limitations. CPLR § 213(2).

Section 213(2) gives a breach of contract claim six years from accrual to be filed.

Hawley v. @home Builders, LLC · filed 2020-02-10(2)

Pursuant to N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 213(2), a claim for breach of contract must be filed within six years of when the claim accrues.

Section 213(2) gives breach-of-contract claims six years from the breach, regardless of when the plaintiff discovers it.

Shoreham Hills, LLC v. Sagaponack Dream House, LLC · filed 2020-03-04(2)

New York law provides a six-year statute of limitations for breach-of-contract causes of action (CPLR 213 [2]), which accrues at the time of the breach ( Ely-Kruishank Co. v Bank of Montreal , 81 NY2d 399, 402). Here, the alleged breach occurred in 2008, more than ten years before this action was commenced. Contrary to the plaintiff's contentions, New York does not apply the "discovery" rule to the statute of limitations in contract actions ( ACE Sec. Corp. v DB Structured Prods., Inc ., 25 NY3d 581 , 594).

Section 213(2) provides a six-year limitations period for breach of contract claims in New York.

Garcia Hamilton & Associates, L.P. v. RBC Capital Markets, LLC · filed 2020-06-10(2)

Further, the statute of limitations for a breach of contract is four years in Texas and six years in New York. See TEX. CIlv. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 16.004(a); N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 213(2). The contract in dispute was allegedly breached, if at all, in 2019. Accordingly, the limitations period has not run, nor is it about to run, on GHA’s claims in either venue and will not do so anytime soon.

Section 213(2) gives a plaintiff six years to bring a breach of contract claim.

Sternberg v. Continuum Health Partners, Inc. · filed 2020-09-23(2)

The statute of limitations for a breach of contract cause of action is six years ( see CPLR 213[2]). ... As this action was commenced more than six years later, so much of the cause of action alleging breach of contract as was based on the plaintiff's vacation time accrued in 2007 is time-barred.

Section 213(2) gives a breach of contract claim six years to be filed.

Nasser v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. · filed 2020-10-08(2)

The Plaintiff’s fifth cause of action is a breach of contract claim, which also has a six-year statute of limitations. N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 213(2). Under this claim, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants are liable for breach of contract for failing to provide the loan modification. Compl. ¶¶ 41–43. This cause of action is time barred because, as stated, the Plaintiff was denied the loan modification on or before April 2011, which is more than six years before the instant Complaint was filed.

Section 213 provides a six-year limitations period for breach of contract claims.

Russo v. United Fedn. of Teachers · filed 2020-12-15

The breach of contract claim was therefore barred by the six-year statute of limitations since it would run, at the latest, in 2017 (CPLR 213).

Section 213(2) bars breach of contract claims based on breaches that occurred more than six years before the action began.

El Toro Group, LLC v. Bareburger Group, LLC · filed 2021-01-14(2)

To the extent any of the breaches of contract alleged in the tenth cause of action occurred before March 2, 2012 (e.g., with respect to NGM's 2011 franchise agreement), the cause of action is time-barred ( see CPLR 213[2]; Ely-Cruikshank Co. v Bank of Montreal, 81 NY2d 399, 402 [1993]).

Section 213(2) sets the limitations period for breach-of-contract claims.

Mazzola v. Lipkin · filed 2021-01-22(2)

Although the evidence showed that the breach of contract claim was time-barred ( see CPLR 213[2]), the trial court , in effect, conformed the pleadings to the proof, and awarded judgment to plaintiff based on unjust enrichment and quantum meruit.

Section 213(2) sets a six-year limitations period for breach of contract claims.

Biehner v. City of New York · filed 2021-03-09(2)

The statute of limitations for a breach of contract claim is six years. N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 213(2). ... Therefore, the breach of contract claims with respect to the corporal punishment investigation and allegation are time barred.

Section 213(2) sets the limitations period for a claim alleging breach of a settlement agreement.

Campbell v. Bradco Supply Co. · filed 2021-03-24(2)

It is undisputed that the plaintiff's ninth and tenth causes of action, which were raised [*2]for the first time in the amended complaint, were time-barred ( see CPLR 213[2]; 214[5]).

Section 213(2) provides a six-year limitations period for breach of contract claims.

Azulay v. Malul · filed 2021-05-05(2)

The statute of limitations for a breach of contract cause of action is six years ( see CPLR 213[2]).

Section 213(2) gives a breach of contract claim six years from the breach, even if damage occurs later or the injured party is unaware of the injury.

Houtenbos v. Fordune Assn., Inc. · filed 2021-12-01(2)

With respect to that branch of Fordune's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) to dismiss the complaint as time-barred, the statute of limitations applicable to a breach of contract cause of action is six years ( see CPLR 213[2]), and begins at the time of the breach, even when no damage occurs until later, and even though the injured party may be ignorant of the existence of the wrong or injury ( see Ely-Cruikshank Co. v Bank of Montreal , 81 NY2d 399, 402-403). While the third cause of action in the complaint sought reimbursement of membership fees dating back to October 1987 based on Fordune's ongoing breach, the plaintiff did not commence this action until December 13, 2017. Accordingly, so much of the third cause of action as accrued prior to December 13, 2011, must be dismissed as time-barred ( see Westchester County Correction Officers Benevolent Assn., Inc. v County of Westchester , 65 AD3d 1226, 1228).

Section 213(2) sets a six-year limitations period for breach of contract claims.

DiCenzo v. Mone · filed 2021-12-02(2)

The statute of limitations is six years for a breach of contract claim ( see CPLR 213 [2]), as well as for a claim seeking to impose a constructive trust ( see CPLR 213 [1]; Matter of George , 194 AD3d 1290, 1293 [2021]).

Section 213(2) gives breach of contract claims a six-year limitations period running from the date of breach.

Marcal Fin. SA v. Middlegate Sec. Ltd. · filed 2022-03-08(2)

The statute of limitations for a breach of contract claim is six years, running from the date of the breach ( see CPLR 213[2]; Ely-Cruikshank Co. v Bank of Montreal , 81 NY2d 399, 402 [1993]), in this case, when plaintiffs' money was transferred in violation of their agreement.

Section 213(2) gives breach-of-contract claims a six-year limitations period that begins when the breach occurs.

Rad & D'Aprile, Inc. v. Arnell Constr. Corp. · filed 2022-03-09(2)

The first cause of action is governed by the terms of the subcontract, and is subject to the six-year statute of limitations in CPLR 213(2). A breach of contract cause of action accrues at, and the statute of limitations begins to run from, the time of the breach ( see John J. Kassner & Co. v City of New York , 46 NY2d 544, 550).

Section 213(2) sets a six-year limitations period for breach-of-contract claims.

Bey v. Westbury Union Free School District · filed 2022-03-28(2)

In New York, a six-year statute of limitations applies to breach-of-contract claims. N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 213(2).

Section 213(2) sets a six-year limitations period for breach of contract claims.

ADYB Engineered For Life, Inc. v. Edan Administration Services (Ireland) LTD. · filed 2022-03-28(2)

Under New York law, the statute of limitations for a breach of contract claim is six years. NY CPLR § 213(2).

Section 213 provides a six-year limitations period for breach-of-contract claims, whether the contract is written or oral.

Lim v. Radish Media, Inc. · filed 2022-06-24

California’s statute of limitations for a breach of contract claim is two years for oral contracts and four years for written contracts, whereas New York’s statutory period of limitations for a breach of contract, either written or oral, is six years.

Section 213(2) gives breach of contract claims a six-year statute of limitations.

Calltrol Corporation v. AB · filed 2023-03-15(2)

Pursuant to N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 213(2), the statute of limitations for a breach of contract claim is six years.

Section 213(2) requires breach of contract actions to be commenced within six years after accrual.

Travis v. Bank of America, N.A. · filed 2023-07-05(2)

Under New York law, the statute of limitations for breach of contract is six years. ... Travis filed her initial action on August 5, 2022, more than six years after the accrual date, making her complaint untimely under N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 213(2).