N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 213

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

Kamath v. Building New Lifestyles, Ltd. · filed 2017-01-11(2)

“[A]n action upon a contractual obligation or liability, express or implied,” must be commenced within six years (CPLR 213 [2]).

Section 213(2) provides a six-year limitations period for breach of contract actions, including a wrongful dishonor claim governed by that period.

ACR Systems, Inc. v. Woori Bank · filed 2017-02-08(2)

As a result, the relevant New York statute of limitations is N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 213(2), which provides a six-year limitations period for breach of contract actions.

CPLR 213 (2) provides a six-year limitations period for breach of contract claims, including mixed goods-and-services contracts that are predominantly for services.

Hagman v. Swenson · filed 2017-02-23(2)

We conclude, to the contrary, that the breach of contract claim is governed by the six-year statute of limitations for breach of services contracts and is thereby timely. Generally, breach of contract actions are governed by CPLR 213 (2), which provides for a six-year statute of limitations.

Section 213 gives a breach-of-contract action six years from the date of breach to be filed.

Kings & Queens Holdings, Inc. v. Ahmad · filed 2017-05-18

The current civil court litigation is an action at law for breach of contract for which the statute of limitations is six years from the date of breach (CPLR 213). Plaintiff alleges the date of breach of the payment terms of the lease occurred on July 1, 2014. Therefore, this action filed January 21, 2016 is timely.

A substantive challenge to a local law is subject to the six-year limitations period under CPLR 213(1).

Miranda Holdings, Inc. v. Town Bd. of Town of Orchard Park · filed 2017-07-07(1)

Contrary to defendant’s contention, we conclude that plaintiff’s first cause of action, which seeks a declaration invalidating Local Law No. 9-2014 in full or to the extent that the law improperly empowered defendant to classify projects that are Type II actions pursuant to SEQRA as Type I actions, was timely commenced inasmuch as it is a challenge to the substance of the law and is therefore subject to a six-year statute of limitations pursuant to CPLR 213 (1) (see Schiener v Town of Sardinia, 48 AD3d 1253, 1254 [2008]; Matter of Jones v Amicone, 27 AD3d 465, 470 [2006]; Matter of McCarthy v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Niskayuna, 283 AD2d 857, 858 [2001]).

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

B.E. Capital Management Fund LP v. Fund.com Inc. · filed 2017-10-04(2)

As noted, New York’s statute of limitations for a claim for breach of a written contract is six years. ... Absent any basis for tolling, Gentile’s claim is barred even under New York’s generous statute of limitations.

Section 213(2) provides a six-year limitations period measured from when a cause of action accrues.

Cataldo v. Herrmann · filed 2017-10-04(2)

Here, taking the allegations in the complaint as true, the defendant established, prima facie, that this action was commenced more than six years after the plaintiff’s causes of action accrued (see CPLR 213 [2]; Chi Kee Pang v Synlyco, Ltd., 89 AD3d 976, 977 [2011]; L & L Plumbing & Heating v DePalo, 253 AD2d 517, 517 [1998]).

Section 213(7) provides a six-year limitations period for claims brought on behalf of a corporation against its directors and officers.

Retirement Plan for Gen. Empls. of the City of N. Miami Beach v. McGraw · filed 2018-02-13(7)

In any event, plaintiffs' claims, to the extent they accrued prior to August 2009, are time-barred ( see CPLR 213[7]; Blake v Blake , 225 AD2d 337 [1st Dept 1996]).

Section 213 provides a six-year limitations period for unjust enrichment, money had and received, and misappropriation of public property claims.

Dist. Attorney of N.Y. Cnty. v. Republic of the Phil. · filed 2018-03-29

Claims for unjust enrichment, money had and received, and misappropriation of public property are governed by a six-year statute of limitations.

Section 213(7) provides a six-year limitations period that can bar claims against individual defendants based on older allegations of wrongdoing.

Grika v. McGraw · filed 2018-05-03(7)

The claims against the individual defendants that are based on the 2004-2007 allegations are time-barred, under the six-year or three-year statute of limitations ( see CPLR 213[7]; 214[4]).

Section 213(2) provides a six-year limitations period for a claim alleging breach of an implied contract.

L.G.B. Dev., Inc. v. Shammas · filed 2018-06-06(2)

That cause of action was based on Shammas's alleged failure to keep his promise, made in 2006, to pay back the funds he had converted. Since this action was commenced on June 29, 2011, the defendants failed to demonstrate that the cause of action was not timely interposed within the six-year limitations period of CPLR 213(2) ( see Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, N.Y. v Christ the King Regional High Sch ., 149 AD3d 994).

Section 213(2) provides a six-year limitations period for breach of contract and implied warranty of habitability claims; when a continuing contractual breach is alleged and only damages are sought, recovery is limited to damages incurred within six years before the action began.

Garron v. Bristol House, Inc. · filed 2018-06-20(2)

Here, the defendants established, prima facie, that the alleged damage occurred when the renovations were performed in November 2004, and that the commencement of this action on April 15, 2016, was beyond the six-year statute of limitations applicable to causes of action for breach of contract or breach of the implied warranty of habitability ( see CPLR 213[2]; Roman v Emigrant Sav. Bank-Brooklyn/Queens, 111 AD3d 692, 694; Witherbee Ct. Assoc. v Greene, 7 AD3d 699, 701). ... However, where, as here, the sole remedy sought for the alleged continuing contractual breaches is monetary damages, the plaintiff's recovery must be limited to damages incurred within the six years prior to commencement of the action ( see Kaymakcian v Board of Mgrs. of Charles House Condominium, 49 AD3d at 407-408; see also Bulova Watch Co. v Celotex Corp., 46 NY2d 606, 611-612; Westchester County Correction Officers Benevolent Assn., Inc. v County of Westchester, 65 AD3d 1226, 1228).

Section 213(2) requires a breach of contract claim to be commenced within six years of accrual; a limitations dismissal is unwarranted when untimeliness does not appear on the complaint's face.

Ambac Assurance Corp. v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n · filed 2018-06-29(2)

Neither party disputes that in New York, a breach of contract claim "must be commenced within six years from the accrual of the cause of action." ... Because the untimeliness of Ambac's breach of contract claims does not appear from the face of the Complaint, U.S. Bank's motion to dismiss them as untimely is denied to the extent that they are not based on U.S. Bank's duty to certify that mortgage documents were properly delivered to the Trusts.

Section 213(2) sets a six-year limitations period for contract actions, including claims for breach of corporate bylaws.

Jaquez v. Union Radio Dispatch, Inc. · filed 2018-09-20(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]).

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

Quinio v. Aala · filed 2018-09-25(2)

Plaintiff brought this action on August 20, 2015, three months before the ...statute of limitations expired. See CPLR § 213(2) (stating a six year statute of limitations for breach of contract claims). Therefore, Defendants will not be permitted to use a statute of limitations defense at trial.

CPLR 213 bars covered causes of action commenced more than six years after they accrue.

Plaza Invs. v. Capital One Fin. Corp. · filed 2018-10-10

Here, Capital One established, prima facie, that the plaintiff commenced this action more than six years after the causes of action accrued ( see CPLR 213).

Section 213(2) requires claims for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing to be brought within six years.

Sonterra Capital Master Fund v. Barclays Bank Plc · filed 2018-12-21(2)

Claims for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing must be brought within six years.

Section 213(1)'s six-year limitations period applies to challenges to the substance of a local law, but not to administrative determinations reviewable under CPLR article 78.

Matter of Save Harrison, Inc. v. Town/Village of Harrison, NY · filed 2019-01-23(1)

Moreover, the six-year statute of limitations applicable to challenges to the substance of a local law ( see CPLR 213[1]) does not apply to administrative determinations which may be reviewed pursuant to CPLR article 78, such as the Town's execution of the December 2014 settlement agreement ( see International Paper Co. v Sterling Forest Pollution Control Corp. , 105 AD2d 278, 282).

Section 213's six-year limitations period bars claims commenced after the applicable time has expired.

Rabiea v. Darwish · filed 2019-03-06

The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint as time-barred by demonstrating that the plaintiffs did not commence the action within the applicable three-year and six-year statutes of limitation ( see CPLR 213[1]; CPLR 213[2]; CPLR 213[8]; CPLR 203[g]; CPLR 214[3]; State of New York v Seventh Regiment Fund , 98 NY2d 249, 259; Ely-Cruikshank Co. v Bank of Montreal , 81 NY2d 399; Wiesenthal v Wiesenthal , 40 AD3d 1078, 1079 ; Siler v Lutheran Social Servs. of Metro. N.Y. , 10 AD3d 646, 648).

Section 213(1) imposes a six-year limitations period on claims governed by it.

Underground Utils., Inc. v. Comptroller of the City of N.Y. · filed 2019-03-12(1)

Plaintiff did not commence this action until 2014, more than six years after the Comptroller's 2007 response. Thus, its tort claims are barred by the applicable three- or six-year statutes of limitations (CPLR 214[3]; CPLR 213[1]; see Tydings v Greenfield, Stein & Senior, LLP , 11 NY3d 195, 201 [2008] [six years for accounting and constructive trust] ; Solomon R. Guggenheim Found. v Lubell , 77 NY2d 311, 317-318 [1991] [three years for replevin]; Ingrami v Rovner , 45 AD3d 806, 808 [2d Dept 2007] [three years for unjust enrichment]; Kaufman v Cohen , 307 AD2d 113, 118 [1st Dept 2003] [three or six years for breach of fiduciary duty]; D'Amico v First Union Natl. Bank , 285 AD2d 166, 172 [1st Dept 2001] [three years for conversion]).

Section 213 supplies a six-year limitations period for contract claims and, by analogy, the ERISA claims at issue.

Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund, Pension Fund, Annuity Fund, Training Fund, Health and Safety Fund, and Domi · filed 2019-09-11

Thus, New York’s six-year limitations period for contract actions governs both Plaintiffs’ ERISA claims and their state law contract claims.

Section 213(1) gives six years to bring a promissory estoppel action when no limitations period is specifically prescribed.

Aleem v. Experience Hendrix, L.L.C. · filed 2019-09-27(1)

Although there is no express provision for a statute of limitations in promissory estoppel cases, New York law3 provides that where no limitations period is specifically prescribed, an action must be commenced within six years.

Section 213 gives six years from accrual to file a breach of contract or fraud action in New York.

Mortgage Resolution Servicing, LLC v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. · filed 2019-09-27(2), (8)

In New York, an action for fraud or breach of contract must be filed within six years of the date that the cause of action accrued.

Section 213 provides six-year limitations periods for breach of contract and fraud claims.

Capital One, N.A. v. Auto Gallery Motors, LLC · filed 2019-09-30(2), (8)

Although Auto Gallery’s answer does not specify the applicable statute of limitations, presumably it is referring to New York’s six-year statute of limitations for breach of contract or fraud claims. See N.Y. C.P.L.R. §§ 213(2), 213(8). ... This suit was filed on November 23, 2016 (see Complaint, Dkt. 1), well within the statute of limitations and any equitable time restriction under laches.

Section 213 gives breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims a six-year limitations period measured from accrual.

Carey v. Trustees of Columbia Univ. in the City of N.Y. · filed 2019-11-12(1), (2)

Plaintiff's breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims are barred by the six-year statute of limitations since her claims accrued on November 30, 2010, when she defended her dissertation, and her suit was commenced on February 8, 2017 (CPLR 213[1], [2]; see Jang Ho Choi v Beautri Realty Corp. , 135 AD3d 451, 452 [1st Dept 2016]).

Section 213(1) provides a six-year limitations period for breach of fiduciary duty claims, measured here from open repudiation of the alleged duties.

Matter of Yin Shin Leung Charitable Found. v. Seng · filed 2019-11-14(1)

The breach of fiduciary duty claims are barred by the applicable six-year statute of limitations, since respondents had "openly repudiated" all the fiduciary duties that petitioners allege they breached by no later than November 16, 2007, and petitioners did not commence this proceeding until December 2013 ( see CPLR 213[1]; Matter of Twin Bay Vil., Inc. , 153 AD3d 998, 1001 [3d Dept 2017], lv denied 31 NY3d 902 [2018]; Westchester Religious Inst. v Kamerman , 262 AD2d 131 [1st Dept 1999]).

Section 213(4) gives a lender six years from acceleration to bring a mortgage foreclosure action on the full debt.

U.S. Bank N.A. v. Atia · filed 2019-12-04(4)

Actions to foreclose a mortgage are governed by a six-year statute of limitations ( see CPLR 213[4]; MLB Sub I, LLC v Grimes , 170 AD3d 992; Milone v US Bank N.A. , 164 AD3d 145, 151; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Eitani , 148 AD3d 193, 197). ... As such, the instant action, commenced on April 7, 2016, within six years of the acceleration, was timely.

Section 213’s six-year limitations period applies when the essence of a claim is contractual, including claims brought under Insurance Law § 3420 or through judgment enforcement.

S.T.A. Parking Corp. v. General Star Indemnity Company · filed 2019-12-23

But the essence of STA’s claims—pleaded as a breach of contract claim, a claim under New York insurance law, and as a garnishment action—are inherently contractual, and are therefore governed by New York law’s six-year statute of limitations.

Section 213 sets a six-year limitations period for breach-of-contract and unjust-enrichment claims under New York law.

Foley v. Wilson · filed 2020-01-02

Under New York law, the statute of limitations for both breach of contract and unjust enrichment is six years. ... As this action was filed within six years of the events alleged in the Complaint, it is not barred by the statute of limitations.

Section 213 provides six-year limitations periods for claims seeking injunctive relief and for fraud claims.

Zirvi v. Flatley · filed 2020-01-14(1), (8)

Apart from the state law fraud claim and the claims for injunctive relief, which are subject to six-year statutes of limitations, N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 213(1), (8), the plaintiffs’ state law claims for damages are subject to three-year statutes of limitations because they are all actions to recover damages for an injury to property.

Section 213(2) imposes a six-year limitations period on claims to recover loan debts.

Matter of Hollis · filed 2020-02-05(2)

Here, Bernadette demonstrated, prima facie, that so much of Peter's claim as was based on the decedent's alleged indebtedness incurred between April 2005 and January 2008 was barred by the applicable six-year statute of limitations ( see CPLR 213[2]).

Section 213(2) sets a six-year limitations period for these state-law claims; fraudulent concealment may make the claims timely.

Dennis v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. · filed 2020-02-13(2)

This reasoning allows OCERS to proceed with its state law claims, which are subject to a six-year statute of limitations that plausibly had not expired by the time plaintiffs filed the second amended complaint.

Section 213 requires actions for fraud or breach of contract to be commenced within six years.

LaNier v. City of New York · filed 2020-02-20

Actions for fraud or breach of contract must be commenced within six years. See N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 213.

CPLR 213(1) gives claims for an equitable mortgage or equitable subrogation a six-year limitations period that began when the order affecting the mortgage was recorded.

HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Parker · filed 2020-02-26(1)

However, in that regard, we agree with the Supreme Court's determination that those causes of action were time-barred by the six-year statute of limitations ( see CPLR 213[1]; U.S. Bank N.A. v Salem , 164 AD3d 1289, 1290; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Burke , 155 AD3d 668, 670). The court's determination that the statute of limitations began to run on July 23, 2007, when the May 2007 order was recorded, is supported by the record.

Section 213(1) provides a six-year catch-all limitations period; the declaratory claim was time-barred even if that period applied.

Monterosso v. Garguilo · filed 2020-03-04(1)

Moreover, whether the statute of limitations applicable to the cause of action for a judgment declaring that the referee's deed and the underlying loan were void as part of a usurious loan transaction is the six-year catch-all period provided in CPLR 213(1) ( see Walter v Starbird-Veltidi , 78 AD3d 820, 821), or the one-year period set forth in CPLR 215(6) ( see Glassman v Zoref , 291 AD2d 430, 431; Mill St. Realty v Reineke , 159 AD2d 494), we agree with the Supreme Court that it was time-barred.

Section 213(2) provides a six-year limitations period for contract and quasi-contract claims, including an unjust-enrichment claim seeking equitable restitution.

Moskovits v. Grigsby · filed 2020-06-09(2)

Therefore, the statute of limitations is six years, and Plaintiff’s action would be timely. In addition, the cases cited by Defendants are inapplicable, as they relate to claims for replevin or conversion of chattels under CPLR § 214(3), not for claims that lie in contract or quasi-contract under CPLR § 213(2).

Section 213(8) gives a fraud claim six years from accrual, which occurs when the plaintiff suffers a loss.

CBI Capital LLC v. Mullen · filed 2020-07-16(8)

Because MMEER brought its fraud claim in January 2020, well within six years of its accrual in March 2016, this claim is timely. See N.Y. CPLR § 213(8) (setting a six-year statute of limitations for a claim of fraud).

Section 213(8) provides a six-year limitations period for fraud claims.

Williams v. Long Beach Mortgage Company · filed 2020-08-14(8)

Under New York law, a fraud claim is subject to a six (6) year statute of limitations. N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 213(8). Again, for the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s fraud claim accrued at least as of 2010, which is beyond the statute of limitations for such a claim. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s fraud claims are also time-barred.

Section 213(8) gives a defendant asserting the six-year fraud limitation the initial burden of establishing when the fraud claim accrued.

Stephanie L. v. House of The Good Shepherd · filed 2020-08-20(8)

We therefore conclude that Good Shepherd failed to meet its initial burden of establishing that the fraud cause of action asserted in 2016 was barred by the applicable six-year statute of limitations ( see CPLR 213 [8]).

Section 213(4) provides a six-year limitations period for an action to recover on a promissory note; a factual dispute about whether that period bars the action precludes summary judgment.

Tkatchev v. Shtayner · filed 2020-10-28(4)

Although the plaintiff established, prima facie, that the defendant failed to repay the loan in accordance with the terms of the promissory note ( see Margarella v Ullian , 164 AD3d 898, 899; Roopchand v Mohammed , 154 AD3d 986, 987), in opposition, the defendant raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the action was barred by the six-year statute of limitations ( see CPLR 213[4]).

Section 213(4) provides a six-year limitations period for mortgage foreclosure actions.

CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Moran · filed 2020-11-05(4)

Contrary to defendant's contention, the first action was timely commenced well within the applicable six-year limitations period, by filing the summons and complaint in Supreme Court (CPLR 213[4], 304[a]; compare Dreger v New York State Thruway Auth. , 81 NY2d 721, 723 [1992]).

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

United States v. Elk Associates Funding Corp. · filed 2020-11-10(2)

Thus, Movants’ proposed claims do not lapse until 2022, six years after the date the Receiver requested to lift the stay to pursue the Receiver Action.

Section 213(1) allows six years from learning that the original signed mortgage is missing to bring a claim to record a certified copy.

Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. McAvoy · filed 2020-11-12(1)

However, the proposed cause of action to direct the Suffolk County Clerk to accept for recording a bank certified copy of a mortgage purportedly signed and acknowledged by both Mark and Laura was timely inasmuch as it was interposed within six years of the plaintiff determining that it did not possess the original mortgage signed by both Mark and Laura ( see CPLR 213[1]; JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Wright , 174 AD3d 871; JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Mbanefo , 123 AD3d 669).

Section 213(2)'s six-year limitations period for contract actions applies to claims for assigned first-party no-fault benefits.

Cautious Care Med., P.C. v. Omni Indem. Co. · filed 2020-11-13(2)

The six-year statute of limitations for contract actions is applicable to this cause of action ( see CPLR 213 [2]).

Section 213(1) sets a six-year deadline for a plenary action challenging a transfer of development rights.

THTML LLC v. Trust for Architectural Easements · filed 2020-12-15(1)

Given defendant's position (and the above determination) that no such rights were retained [*2]by 15 W. 17th St., the proper course would have been for 15 W. 17th St. to challenge the transfer in a plenary action within six years (CPLR 213[1]), which expired in 2013.

Section 213 provides a six-year limitations period for an action on a mortgage-secured note or a contractual obligation.

Citimortgage, Inc. v. Ramirez · filed 2020-12-24(2), (4)

Whether the present action is viewed as an action on a note secured by a mortgage or as an action on a contractual obligation, the statute of limitations is six years ( see CPLR 213 [2], [4]).

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

Mendler v. Jane-Horatio LLC · filed 2021-02-09(2)

The statute of limitations is six years for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and constructive trust claims ( see CPLR 213[2] [contract]; Maya NY, LLC v Hagler , 106 AD3d 583, 584-585 [1st Dept 2013] [unjust enrichment]; Knobel v Shaw , 90 AD3d 493, 496 [1st Dept 2011] [constructive trust]; 10 years for RPAPL article 15 claims ( see CPLR 212[a]); and three years for tortious interference claims ( see CPLR 214[4]).

Section 213(8) provides a six-year limitations period for fraud claims, including conspiracy to defraud.

QED LLC v. Faber Daeufer & Itrato, P.C. · filed 2021-02-22(8)

Under New York law, claims based in fraud, including Plaintiff’s conspiracy to defraud claim, are governed by a six-year statute of limitations.

Section 213 bars arbitration when a claimant does not initiate it within six years after the claim arises.

Lifetime Tech., Inc. v. Portables Unlimited, Inc. · filed 2021-02-24

The Supreme Court also properly determined that arbitration of the dispute would be time-barred since the plaintiffs did not initiate arbitration within six years of the date their claims arose ( see CPLR 213; Matter of DeLuca v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. , 17 NY2d 76; Matter of Continental Ins. Co. v Richt , 253 AD2d 818, 819).

Section 213’s six-year limitations period does not apply to a breach of fiduciary duty claim seeking purely monetary relief merely labeled disgorgement, or to a claim that does not sound in fraud.

VA Mgt., LP v. Estate of Valvani · filed 2021-03-25(1), (8)

Plaintiff's characterization of that relief as "disgorgement" of Valvani's compensation does not convert it into a claim for equitable relief to which the six-year statute of limitations would apply (CPLR 213[1]; see IDT Corp. v Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co. , 12 NY3d 132, 139 [2009]; Kaufman v Cohen , 307 AD2d 113, 118 [1st Dept 2003]; see Access Point Med., LLC v Mandell , 106 AD3d 40, 44 [1st Dept 2013]). ... Plaintiff's breach of fiduciary duty claim does not sound in fraud to warrant application of the six-year statute of limitations (CPLR 213[8]).

Section 213(4) gives a lender six years to bring a mortgage foreclosure action; acceleration starts that period for the entire debt.

Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v. Rosenbaum · filed 2021-09-01(4)

An action to foreclose a mortgage is subject to a six-year statute of limitations ( see CPLR 213[4]). ... Since the plaintiff did not commence this action until August 2017, approximately seven years and eight months after the debt was accelerated, the defendants demonstrated, prima facie, that this action is untimely ( see Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Schmitt , 172 AD3d at 1325; Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Craig , 169 AD3d at 629).

Section 213(2) bars a landlord from obtaining escrowed underpaid percentage rent for periods beyond its six-year limitations period.

Rose Group Park Ave. LLC v. Third Church Christ, Scientist, of N.Y. City · filed 2021-10-14(2)

The motion court correctly determined that, on the limited question before it, defendant landlord was not entitled to release of the escrow of a balance purportedly owed to it for underpaid percentage rent under the parties' lease, as those amounts fell beyond the six-year statute of limitations, as per CPLR 213(2).

Section 213(9) gives the Attorney General six years to bring an action under the Martin Act or Executive Law § 63(12).

People v. Allen · filed 2021-10-21(9)

Since August 26, 2019, CPLR 213(9) has stated that a six-year statute of limitations governs "an action by the Attorney General pursuant to" the Martin Act or Executive Law § 63(12). Plaintiff commenced the instant action on December 4, 2019, well within the six-year limitations period. Defendants' contention that CPLR 213(9) should not be applied retroactively ignores the fact that this court applied a six-year statute of limitations to Martin Act claims during the period of defendants' offending conduct.

CPLR 213(4) gives a mortgage foreclosure action six years from acceleration of the debt to be commenced.

Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v. Walter · filed 2021-11-17(4)

Therefore, the statute of limitations began to run when the 2009 action was commenced, and this action, commenced in September 2016, is time-barred by the six-year statute of limitations for mortgage foreclosure actions ( see CPLR 213[4]).

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

Spada v. Aspen Univ., Inc. · filed 2022-02-08(2)

It is undisputed that defendant failed to repay the principal and interest on its promissory note within two years of the effective date of the note, as required by the terms of the note, and that plaintiff did not assert his claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment within the six-year limitations period applicable to both ( see CPLR 213[2]; Knobel v Shaw , 90 AD3d 493, 495 [1st Dept 2011]).

Section 213(2) and (4) provide a six-year limitations period that bars breach of contract claims brought after that period expires.

Acquafredda Enters. LLC v. Sterling Natl. Bank · filed 2022-02-10(2), (4)

Defendants demonstrated that the breach of contract claims against them are barred by the six-year statute of limitations (CPLR 213[2], [4]).

Section 213(8)’s six-year limitations period for fraud runs from when the cause of action accrues.

Bai v. Tegs Management, LLC · filed 2022-03-01(8)

The cause of action for fraud therefore accrued at that time. Accordingly, the statute of limitations began to run in August 2013 and expired in August 2019, eleven months before the filing of this action in June 2020.

Section 213(2) provides a six-year limitations period for contract claims, including claims on foreign sovereign bonds that do not qualify for the twenty-year period under § 211(a).

Bainbridge Fund Ltd. v. the Republic of Argentina · filed 2022-06-22(2)

Argentina is not a bond-issuing “person” covered by N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 211(a), so Bainbridge’s claims are governed by New York’s six-year statute of limitations for contract claims.

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

Global Tech Industries Group Inc. v. Wells · filed 2022-07-21(2)

Under New York law, causes of action for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing are governed by N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 213(2), which provides for a six-year statute of limitations.

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

Miyamoto v. Bank of America, N.A. · filed 2022-09-12(2)

Under New York law, contract claims must be brought within six years of the alleged breach. N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 213(2). Because the contract was closed in 2009, ten years before Plaintiff sued, Plaintiff’s breach claim is untimely to the extent it concerns BANA’s closing the reverse mortgage.

Section 213(8) gives fraud claims a six-year limitations period; a claim based on a 2007 loan origination was time-barred by 2013.

Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB v. Covino · filed 2022-09-14(8)

And even if he had done so, pro se Defendant’s allegations of fraud stems from events that purportedly occurred at the origination of the subject loan on May 16, 2007—for which his claim of fraud became time-barred as of 2013. CPLR § 213(8).

Section 213(2) provides a six-year limitations period for an action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits.

Arguelles M.D., P.C. v. American Ind. Ins. Co. · filed 2022-09-23(2)

Plaintiff did not commence this action until 2018, after the six-year statute of limitations for contract actions, which is applicable to this cause of action ( see CPLR 213 [2]; Mandarino v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. , 37 AD3d 775 [2007]), had expired.

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

Bryan v. Fleetbank N.A. · filed 2022-10-12(2)

The statute of limitations on a New York contract claim is six years; in Florida, it is five years.

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

Stewart v. Amber · filed 2022-10-13(2)

Because this action was brought more than six years later, it was untimely (CPLR 213 [2]).

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

Mhina v. Citizens Bank, N.A. · filed 2022-11-01(2)

Thus, all of Plaintiff’s claims accrued at the latest on April 9, 2014, more than eight years before he commenced this lawsuit on May 3, 2022. All of Plaintiff’s claims, which are subject to a maximum limitations period of six years, are therefore untimely.

Section 213(9) gives the Attorney General six years to bring actions under Executive Law § 63(12) and the Martin Act.

Matter of People of the State of New York v. Cohen · filed 2023-03-02(9)

Under CPLR 213(9), a six-year limitations period, not a three-year one, governs "an action by the attorney general" under Executive § 63(12) and the Martin Act (General Business Law article 23-A, § 352 et seq. ) ( People v Allen , 198 AD3d 531, 532 [1st Dept 2021], appeal dismissed, lv dismissed, 38 NY3d 996 [2022], appeal dismissed, lv denied 39 NY3d 928 [2002]).

Section 213(1) generally gives declaratory judgment actions a six-year statute of limitations.

Kogut v. Village of Chestnut Ridge · filed 2023-03-15(1)

"An action for a declaratory judgment is generally governed by a six-year statute of limitations" ( Save the View Now v Brooklyn Bridge Park Corp. , 156 AD3d 928, 931, citing CPLR 213[1]).

Section 213 requires actions for breach of contract or declaratory judgment to be commenced within six years.

Sloane v. Power Auth. of the State of N.Y. · filed 2023-03-16(1), (2)

We incidentally note that, even if plaintiffs' claims properly lent themselves to an action for breach of contract or a declaratory judgment, as plaintiffs contend, commencement still would fall outside of the six-year limitations period applicable to such claims ( see CPLR 213 [1], [2]; Via Health Home Care, Inc. v New York State Dept. of Health , 33 AD3d 1100, 1102 [3d Dept 2006]).

Section 213 provides a six-year statute of limitations for the listed New York claims.

Horsburgh v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · filed 2023-03-27(2), (6), (8)

Under New York law, a six-year statute of limitations applies to Plaintiff’s claim for breach of contract (Count One), intentional misrepresentation (Count Two), negligent misrepresentation (Count Three), breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Count Four), and promissory estoppel (Count Five). N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 213(2), (6), (8).

Section 213(2) gives contract claims a six-year limitations period that begins when the breach occurs, without a discovery rule.

Malek v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Co. · filed 2023-03-29(2)

As applicable here, New York has a six-year statute of limitations for contract claims, which runs from the time of breach. ... New York does not apply the discovery rule to the statute of limitations in contract actions. ... Because the six-year statute of limitations for New York contract claims runs from the time of breach, Plaintiff’s contract claims were time-barred at the time the Complaint was filed.

Section 213(2) gives six years to bring an action based on a contractual obligation.

Tsai v. Mega Life & Health Ins. Co. · filed 2023-04-27(2)

Plaintiff's claim arising from denial of health insurance benefits under his policy with defendant Mega is barred by the six-year statute of limitations (CPLR 213[2]; Ely-Cruikshank Co. v Bank of Montreal , 81 NY2d 399, 402 [1993]).

Section 213(1) provides a six-year limitations period potentially applicable to breach of fiduciary duty and trust claims.

Harris v. TD Ameritrade Clearing Inc. · filed 2023-05-10(1)

Under New York law (which Harris and TD Ameritrade agree applies here), her claims would be subject to, at most, a six-year statute of limitations.

Section 213(8) requires a fraud action within the greater of six years after accrual or two years after discovery or reasonable discoverability of the fraud.

Harbinger Capital Partners II, LP v. Apollo Global Mgt., LLC · filed 2023-05-23(8)

Under CPLR 213(8), a cause of action for fraud must be commenced within "the greater of six years from the date the cause of action accrued or two years from the time the plaintiff . . . discovered the fraud or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it" (CPLR 213 [8]; see also CPLR 203 [g][1]).

Section 213(1) requires actions for declaratory relief to be commenced within six years after accrual.

Trump Vil. Section 4, Inc. v. Young · filed 2023-06-07(1)

'An action for a declaratory judgment is generally governed by a six-year statute of limitations' and is time-barred if commenced more than six years after it accrues ( Kogut v Vilage [*3]of Chestnut Ridge , 214 AD3d 777, 779, quoting Save the View Now v Brooklyn Bridge Park Corp. , 156 AD3d 928, 931, citing CPLR 213[1]).

It gives mortgage foreclosure actions a six-year limitations period.

U.S. Bank N.A. v. Corcuera · filed 2023-06-21(4)

An action to foreclose a mortgage is governed by a six-year statute of limitations ( see CPLR 213[4]; Lubonty v U.S. Bank N.A. , 159 AD3d 962, 963, affd 34 NY3d 250).

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

Biodiagnostic Labs, Inc. v. State of New York · filed 2023-06-26(2)

Here, the relevant statute of limitations for this breach of contract claim is six years (CPLR § 213 [2]).

Section 213(4) gives mortgage foreclosure actions a six-year limitations period, and subsection (a) addresses estoppel after a dismissal based on a timely defense that the mortgage was not validly accelerated.

Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Treitel · filed 2023-06-28(4)(a)

Actions to foreclose a mortgage are governed by a six-year statute of limitations ( see CPLR 213[4]). ... Furthermore, the plaintiff was not estopped from asserting that the mortgage was not validly accelerated by commencement of the 2010 action, as that action "was dismissed based on an expressed judicial determination, made upon a timely interposed defense, that the instrument was not validly accelerated" (CPLR 213[4][a]; cf. GMAT Legal Title Trust 2014-1 v Kator , 213 AD3d 915, 917).

CPLR 213(4) gives mortgage foreclosure actions a six-year limitations period.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Newhouse · filed 2023-07-28(4)

A mortgage foreclosure action is subject to a six-year statute of limitations ( see CPLR 213 [4]). ... In light of the 603 days during which the statute of limitations was tolled, plaintiff had until January 2018 to commence the instant action. Thus, the instant action, commenced in July 2016, was timely commenced and Newhouse's cross-motion insofar as it sought summary judgment dismissing the complaint as time-barred should have been denied.

Section 213 imposes a six-year statute of limitations on the cause of action for dissolution.

Matter of Apostolopoulos v. Oxford Assoc. Group, Inc. · filed 2023-08-02

A cause of action for dissolution is subject to a six-year statute of limitations ( see CPLR 213; Wasay v Alvi , 148 AD3d 1089, 1090; DiPace v Figueroa , 223 AD2d 949, 952).

CPLR 213 provides six-year limitation periods for fraud-based breach of fiduciary duty, constructive trust, and breach of contract claims, with accrual rules depending on the subsection.

Statharos v. Statharos · filed 2023-08-09(1), (2), and (8)

Here, allegations of actual fraud are essential to, not merely incidental to, the breach of fiduciary duty cause of action. Consequently, the limitations period set forth in CPLR 213(8) is applicable. ... A cause of action "'for the imposition of a constructive trust is governed by the six-year Statute of Limitations of CPLR 213(1), which starts to run upon the occurrence of the wrongful act giving rise to a duty of restitution'" ( Barone v Barone , 130 AD3d 765, 766, quoting Sitkowski v Petzing , 175 AD2d 801, 802). ... 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" ( Houtenbos v Fordune Assn., Inc. , 200 AD3d 662, 666, citing Ely-Cruikshank Co. v Bank of Montreal , 81 NY2d 399, 402-403).

Section 213(1) gives attorney deceit claims under Judiciary Law § 487 a six-year limitations period.

Catsiapis v. Pardalis & Nohavicka, LLP · filed 2023-08-09(1)

An action to recover damages for attorney deceit under Judiciary Law § 487 is subject to the six-year statute of limitations set forth in CPLR 213(1) ( see Melcher v Greenberg Traurig, LLP , 23 NY3d 10, 15).

Subsection 213(2) provides a six-year limitations period for breach of contract actions, measured from accrual.

Hershman v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon · filed 2023-08-23(2)

Since the instant action was commenced in December 2019, within six years from the date of accrual of the cause of action alleging breach of contract ( see CPLR 213[2]), dismissal of that cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) as time-barred was not warranted.

Section 213 gives a plaintiff six years to bring a breach-of-contract claim after the breach.

Zarate v. Chase Bank · filed 2023-09-13

The general rule under New York law is that a plaintiff can file a breach-of-contract claim within six years of the breach. N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 213.

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

Catala v. Joombas Co LTD · filed 2023-09-20(2)

Because the parties agree that any actionable claim for breach of Contract 1 arose between September 14, 2012 and December 31, 2013, and because neither party argues that any claim arose before September 14, 2012, this Court finds that the six-year statute of limitations (see N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 213(2) (“[A]n action upon a contractual obligation or liability, express or implied” “must be commenced within six years.”) does not bar Plaintiffs claims for breach of Contract 1.

CPLR 213(2) provides a six-year limitations period for the action, renewed by a partial payment of principal or interest.

Aldrich v. LNG Enters., Inc. · filed 2023-10-06(2)

We conclude that Supreme Court properly granted that part of defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint inasmuch as defendant met its initial burden of showing that this action was commenced well after the expiration of the applicable six-year statute of limitations, and plaintiff failed to raise any triable issue of fact in opposition ( see CPLR 213 [2]; see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp. , 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]).

Section 213(2) requires contract and implied covenant claims to be commenced within six years of the alleged breach.

Titus v. UMG Recordings, Inc. · filed 2023-11-20(2)

Under New York law,3 Plaintiffs must bring their claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing within six years of the alleged breach. N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 213(2) (stating that “an action upon a contractual obligation or liability, express or implied” must be “commenced within six years”); see Guilbert v. Gardner, 480 F.3d 140, 149 (2d Cir. 2007) (“A cause of action for breach of contract ordinarily accrues and the limitations period begins to run upon breach.”)

Section 213(4) gives mortgage foreclosure actions a six-year limitations period.

Anglestone Real Estate Venture Partners Corp. v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon · filed 2023-11-29(4)

An action to foreclose a mortgage is governed by a six-year statute of limitations ( see CPLR 213[4]).

Section 213(1) provides a six-year statute of limitations for challenges to the validity of a legislative act.

Tokos v. County of Broome · filed 2023-11-30(1)

The applicable statute of limitations is, instead, the six-year one applicable to challenges to the validity of a legislative act, and this action, commenced a few months after the redistricting law was adopted and took effect, is timely ( see CPLR 213 [1]; Matter of Save the Pine Bush v City of Albany , 70 NY2d at 202-203).

Section 213(6) provides a six-year statute of limitations for actions to which its rule applies.

Pravda v. Gleeson · filed 2023-11-30(6)

Accordingly, as "an owner who is in possession of real property need not comply with the time [*3]limitations in an action to discharge an encumbrance on his [or her] title," the statute of limitations is inapplicable to defendant's counterclaim ( Welch v Prevost Landowners , 202 AD2d 803, 804 [3d Dept 1994]; see Orange and Rockland Util. v Philwold Estates , 52 NY2d 253, 261 [1981]; Crain v Mannise , 125 AD3d 1422, 1424 [4th Dept 2015]; compare Elam v Altered Ego Realty Holding Corp. , 114 AD3d at 903; Stevens v Communicare Props., LLC , 111 AD3d 614, 615 [2d Dept 2013]; WPA Acquisition Corp. v Lynch , 82 AD3d 1215, 1216 [2d Dept 2011]).

Section 213 requires claims governed by subdivisions (2) and (8) to be brought within six years.

G&Y Maintenance Corp. v. McSam Hotel Group LLC · filed 2023-12-28[2], [8]

This action was commenced more than six years later, in 2020, and is therefore untimely ( see CPLR 213[2], [8]; see also IDT Corp. v Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co. , 12 NY3d 132, 139 [2009]; Maya NY, LLC v Hagler , 106 AD3d 583, 585 [1st Dept 2013]; Elie Intl., Inc. v Macy's W. Inc. , 106 AD3d 442, 443 [1st Dept 2013]).

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

Lazar v. Mor · filed 2024-01-10(2)

"[A]n action upon a contractual obligation or liability, express or implied" must be commenced within six years. (CPLR 213 [2].)

Section 213(1) gives constructive trust actions a six-year limitations period, measured from the wrongful act giving rise to the duty of restitution rather than discovery of fraud.

Lieber v. Lieber · filed 2024-01-25(1)

Under CPLR 213(1), the statute of limitations to commence an action for a constructive trust is six years. New York Courts have repeatedly held the statute of limitations commences upon the occurrence of the wrongful act giving rise to the duty of restitution, not from the time when the facts constituting the fraud are discovered. Kaufman v. Cohen, 307 A.D.2d 113, 127 (1st Dep't 2003).

Section 213(4) gives mortgage foreclosure actions a six-year statute of limitations.

US Bank N.A. v. Medianik · filed 2024-01-31(4)

An action to foreclose a mortgage is governed by a six-year statute of limitations ( see CPLR 213[4]; Lubonty v U.S. Bank N.A. , 34 NY3d 250, 261; MTGLQ Invs., L.P. v Singh , 216 AD3d 1087, 1088).

Section 213(4) sets a six-year limitations period for commencing a mortgage foreclosure action.

U.S. Bank NA v. Schaer · filed 2024-01-31(4)

An action to foreclose a mortgage is governed by a six-year statute of limitations ( see CPLR 213[4]; Lubonty v U.S. Bank N.A. , 34 NY3d 250, 261; U.S. Bank N.A. v Dallas , 212 AD3d 680, 682).

Section 213(1) gives proceedings to compel a fiduciary accounting a six-year statute of limitations.

Matter of Sassouni · filed 2024-02-07(1)

A proceeding to compel an accounting by a fiduciary is governed by a six-year statute of limitations ( see CPLR 213[1]).

Section 213 gives a cause of action based on quantum meruit a six-year limitations period.

State of New York v. Williams · filed 2024-02-09

Pursuant to CPLR 213, a six-year limitations period applies to a cause of action premised upon quantum meruit ( see CB Richard Ellis-Buffalo , LLC v Kunvarji Hotels , Inc. , 94 AD3d 1458, 1458 [4th Dept 2012]) .

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

Costello v. Curan & Ahlers, LLP · filed 2024-02-14(2)

Here, the applicable statute of limitations for both causes of action is six years ( see CPLR 213[2]; Labor Law § 198[3]).

Section 213(2) bars claims commenced more than six years after the cause of action accrued.

Network-1 Tech., Inc. v. Netgear, Inc. · filed 2024-02-20(2)

With respect to defendant's counterclaims, plaintiff entered into contracts with Cisco and Extreme that defendant now alleges breached the most-favored-licensee clause of the agreement more than six years before this action was commenced, so those counterclaims are barred by the statute of limitations ( see CPLR 213[2]; Kronos, Inc. v AVX Corp. , 81 NY2d 90, 93-94 [1993]).

Section 213(6) gives a six-year limitations period for a contract reformation claim, running from the date the mistake is made.

NCCMI, Inc. v. Bersin Props., LLC · filed 2024-03-05(6)

A claim for reformation of a contract, including reformation based on a scrivener's error, is governed by the six-year statute of limitations, which begins to run on the date that the mistake is made (CPLR 213[6]; 1414 APF, LLC v Deer Stags, Inc. , 39 AD3d 329, 330 [1st Dept 2007]).

Section 213(4) imposes a six-year statute of limitations on mortgage foreclosure actions.

Sarkar v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams. · filed 2024-03-06(4)

An action to foreclose a mortgage is governed by a six-year statute of limitations ( see CPLR 213[4]).

Section 213(1) sets a six-year limitations period for commencing an action.

Bank of Am., N.A. v. Jones · filed 2024-03-26(1)

Accordingly, its 2019 complaint was barred from enforcement after February 16, 2016 by the NY CPLR § 213(1) statute of limitations.

Section 213(2) generally gives breach of contract actions a six-year limitations period but excludes claims for the sale of goods, which are subject to the UCC's four-year period.

Zantaz Enterprise Archive Solution, LLC f/k/a Capax Discovery, LLC v. MidMichigan Health · filed 2024-03-26(2)

However, New York law expressly excludes from this six-year statute of limitations breach of contract claims involving the sale of goods—defined as all things movable at the time of contract—subject to Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code and its four-year statute of limitations. See N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 213(2); UNIF. COM. CODE §§ 2-105(1) and 2-725.

Section 213(8) allows fraud based claims the greater of six years after the alleged fraud or two years after actual or reasonably possible discovery.

Guzzone v. Zazza · filed 2024-03-29(8)

The New York statute of limitations for fraud-based claims is the greater of six years from the date of the alleged fraud or two years from the date of plaintiff’s actual or reasonably possible discovery of that fraud.

Section 213(1) supplies a six-year limitations period when the relief sought is equitable in nature.

Dumontet v. UBS Financial Services, Inc. · filed 2024-03-29(1)

Where, however, the relief sought is equitable in nature, the six-year limitations period of CPLR 213(1) applies.

Section 213 bars common-law fraud, breach-of-contract, and indemnity claims six years after accrual.

International Transport Management Corp v. Brooks Fitch Apparel Group LLC · filed 2024-04-18

The alleged nonpayment took place between 2009 and 2011, so any potential action by Cargo Services based upon those alleged non-payments would be time-barred.

Section 213(1) gives attorney-deceit claims under Judiciary Law § 487 six years from the date of injury to be filed.

Butry v. National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2005-3 · filed 2024-08-16(1)

The statute of limitations for attorney deceit claims under Judiciary Law § 487 is six years from the date of injury.

Section 213 provides a six-year limitations period for Executive Law § 63(12), § 63-c, and unjust enrichment claims.

People v. Abraham Operations Assoc. LLC · filed 2024-08-23

The statute of limitations for petitioner's claims is 6 years (see CPLR 213 [9] [§ 63 (12) claims], CPLR 213 [5] [§ 63-c claims], CPLR 213 [1] [unjust enrichment claims]).

CPLR 213(4) gives a mortgage foreclosure action a six-year limitations period that begins to run on the entire debt when the lender accelerates it.

Citimortgage, Inc. v. Goldstein · filed 2024-09-18(4)

"Pursuant to CPLR 213(4), an action to foreclose a mortgage is subject to a six-year statute of limitations" ( GMAT Legal Title Trust 2014-1 v Kator , 213 AD3d 915, 916). ... Here, at the time of the commencement of the 2008 foreclosure action, the plaintiff elected to call due the entire amount secured by the mortgage. Thus, the statute of limitations began to run in 2008, more than six years prior to the commencement of this action in March 2021 ( see Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Norton , 219 AD3d 680, 682).

Section 213's six-year limitations period for equitable claims is not extended by the continuing wrong doctrine when the alleged harm is only the lasting effect of a past act.

Haim v. 875 Park Ave. Corp. · filed 2024-09-24(1), (7)

Plaintiff acknowledges that the causes of action are subject to a six-year statute of limitations to the extent they seek equitable relief ( see CPLR 213[1] and [7]). ... Even if the statute of limitations did not begin to run until plaintiff acquired her interest, the relevant limitations periods have all long expired because she purchased her shares for apartment 9B in 2005. Furthermore, the continuing wrong doctrine does not apply to extend the limitations period, because plaintiff alleges not ongoing unlawful acts but merely the lasting effects of the cooperative's sponsor's decision to allocate 210 shares to apartment 9B more than three quarters of a century earlier ( see Henry v Bank of Am. , 147 AD3d 599, 601-602 [1st Dept 2017]).

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

Liberty Events, LLC v. 175 Van Dyke LLC · filed 2024-09-26(2)

Breach of contract claims have a six- year statute of limitations (CPLR 213 [2]).

Section 213(1) and (2) provide a six-year limitations period for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and promissory estoppel claims.

Cipriani USA, Inc. v. Heaton · filed 2024-11-01(1), (2)

The statute oflimitations for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and promissory estoppel is six years (see CPLR 213[1] and [2]).

CPLR 213(1) and (8) provide a six-year limitations period for actions based on fraud or unjust enrichment.

Gao v. Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. · filed 2025-01-02(1), (8)

Per CPLR 213(1) and (8), an action based upon fraud or unjust enrichment is subject to a six-year limitations period.

Section 213(2) bars recovery of unpaid rent that accrued more than six years before the landlord asserted its contract counterclaim.

Abarrotes Mixteca Corp., Inc. v. Brisk · filed 2025-01-07(2)

As to the merits, although the motion court awarded the entirety of the amounts of unpaid additional rent going back to 2006, the landlord's inexplicable delay in asserting these counterclaims until September 13, 2019 rendered the amounts that accrued before September 13, 2013 time-barred (CPLR 213[2]).

Section 213(8) gives fraud claims six years from accrual to be commenced.

Kumaran v. Northland Energy Trading, LLC · filed 2025-01-10(8)

Claims for fraud have a six-year statute of limitations.

Section 213(8) provides a six-year limitations period that barred claims filed more than six years after the claimant knew of the alleged misconduct.

In re Lifetrade Litigation · filed 2025-01-23(8)

Marcum’s misrepresentation and tortious interference claims are time-barred. The relevant statute of limitations is six years. See N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 213(8).

Section 213(4) sets a six-year limitations period for an action to foreclose a mortgage.

IPA Asset Mgt., LLC v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. · filed 2025-01-29(4)

An action to foreclose a mortgage is governed by a six-year statute of limitations ( see CPLR 213[4]; Lubonty v U.S. Bank N.A. , 34 NY3d 250, 261; MTGLQ Invs., L.P. v Singh , 216 AD3d 1087, 1088).

A defendant seeking dismissal under the six-year limitations period must establish that it applies to the challenged mortgage discharge.

Yakte Props., LLC v. Milner · filed 2025-01-30

Milner failed to establish prima facie that the six-year-statute of limitations applies to the allegedly erroneous discharge of the original mortgage ( see LNV Corp. v Sorrento, 154 AD3d 840, 841 [2d Dept 2017]).

Section 213(2) provides a six-year limitations period for a claim alleging breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Frydman v. Endurance Am. Ins. Co. · filed 2025-02-19(2)

The statute of limitations for the breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing is six years ( see id. ; CPLR 213[2]).

Section 213 provides a six-year limitations period for breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims; fraud claims have the greater of six years from accrual or two years from discovery or reasonable discoverability.

International Flight Resources, LLC v. Aufiero · filed 2025-03-19

New York law provides for a six-year limitations period on breach of contract and unjust ... enrichment claims, a period for fraud claims of “the greater of six years from the date the cause action accrued or two years from the time the plaintiff or . . . discovered the fraud, or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it.” N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 213.

Section 213(4) gives a mortgagee six years after acceleration of the debt to commence a foreclosure action.

Auquilla v. Villa · filed 2025-04-09(4)

An action to foreclose a mortgage is governed by a six-year statute of limitations ( see CPLR 213[4]; Mardenborough v U.S. Bank N.A. , 201 AD3d 641, 643; Lubonty v U.S. Bank N.A. , 159 AD3d 962, 963, affd 34 NY3d 250). ... As the instant action was commenced more than six years after the acceleration of the debt in the 2010 action, and any new action to foreclose the mortgage is time-barred, the owners are entitled to cancellation of the mortgage ( see RPAPL 1501[4]; Collins v Bank of N.Y. Mellon , 227 AD3d 948, 950; Kashipour v Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB , 144 AD3d at 987).

Section 213(8)'s six-year limitations period applies to a fraud claim challenging a deed that is voidable because the signer lacked authority, rather than void because of forgery or false pretenses.

DiCenzo v. Mone · filed 2025-04-24(8)

Based on the foregoing, the species of fraud understood as a forgery or false pretenses is not implicated and, thus, the CPLR 213 (8) six-year statute of limitations was applicable to the cause of action ( see Rockwell v Despart , 212 AD3d at 36).

Section 213(4)’s six-year period for mortgage foreclosure runs from loan acceleration.

U.S. Bank Trust N.A. v. Smith · filed 2025-05-07(4)

In this case, although the original default was in 2012, the acceleration was not until 2015, when plaintiff commenced a previous action. That action was dismissed, but plaintiff commenced this action in 2019 — within six years of acceleration.

Section 213(4) gives a mortgage lien holder six years from accrual to bring a foreclosure action.

NDF1, LLC v. Verwayne · filed 2025-05-14(4)

It appears the applicable statute is N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 213(4), which allows the mortgage lien holder six years from accrual.

Section 213(7) gives the Attorney General six years to bring an action on behalf of a corporation against a present or former director, officer, or stockholder for an accounting or injury to property.

People v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany, N.Y. · filed 2025-05-14(7)

The OAG action falls squarely under CPLR §213(7). ... Since the OAG commenced its action on May 24, 2022, well within six (6) years of the date that the claims accrued, the OAG action was timely commenced.

Section 213(1) provides a six-year limitations period under which a suit commenced within six years of an agreement's amendment is timely.

Movimiento Misionero Mundial, Inc. v. SoBRO Dev. Corp. · filed 2025-05-22(1)

Furthermore, plaintiff's suit was timely commenced within six years of the 2015 amendment to the SDA (CPLR 213[1]).

Section 213(4) requires an action on a note secured by a real-property mortgage to be commenced within six years.

U.S. Bank Trust N.A. v. Braun · filed 2025-10-15(4)

With regard to the statute of limitations, "an action upon a bond or note, the payment of which is secured by a mortgage upon real property, or upon a bond or note and mortgage so secured, or upon a mortgage of real property, or any interest therein" "must be commenced within six years" (CPLR 213[4]).

Section 213(4) gives a mortgage foreclosure action a six-year limitations period.

Ditech Fin., LLC v. Naidu · filed 2025-12-24(4)

An action to foreclose a mortgage is subject to a six-year statute of limitations ( see CPLR 213[4]).

CPLR 213(4) gives a lender six years to bring a mortgage foreclosure action after the mortgage debt is accelerated.

Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v. Lozowski · filed 2026-01-28(4)

An action to foreclose a mortgage is subject to a six-year statute of limitations ( see CPLR 213[4]). ... Here, Deutsche elected to call due the entire balance of the mortgage debt in the complaint in the 2010 action, and the instant action was commenced in 2019, more than six years later.

Section 213(1) bars intentional and negligent misrepresentation counterclaims based on statements made more than six years before the action commenced.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Carl · filed 2026-05-06(1)

The plaintiff established, prima facie, that the defendants' first two counterclaims were time-barred, since the counterclaims alleged that the plaintiff made intentional and negligent misrepresentations in March 2008, more than six years prior to the commencement of this action in May 2018 (see CPLR 213[1]; Fandy Corp. v Lung-Fong Chen, 262 AD2d 352, 353).

Section 213(4) imposes a six-year limitations period on actions to establish an equitable mortgage or equitable subrogation lien.

Citibank, N.A. v. Cabello · filed 2026-05-06(4)

"A cause of action seeking to establish a lien pursuant to the doctrine of equitable mortgage or the doctrine of equitable subrogation is governed by a six-year statute of limitations"

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

Qiao v. Tang · filed 2026-06-03(2)

"A cause of action sounding in breach of contract is governed by a six-year statute of limitations" ( St. Hillaire v Torres , 229 AD3d 476, 477; see CPLR 213[2]).

Section 213(4) gives a mortgagee six years to enforce a mortgage-secured promissory note.

Rouge v. U.S. Bank Trust N.A. · filed 2026-06-16(4)

However, defendant and its predecessors in interest had the benefit of a six-year statute of limitations. That period has ended.

Section 213(6) applies a six-year limitations period to wage claims; once defendants establish that claims fall outside that period, the plaintiff must raise a factual question about a toll or exception.

Qi v. Famous Sichuan N.Y. Inc. · filed 2026-06-16(6)

On their cross-motion, defendants presented a prima facie defense that the applicable six-year statute of limitations to plaintiff's wage claims ( see CPLR 213[6]; Labor Law § 198[3]) precluded the claims predating March 2, 2016, thereby shifting the burden to plaintiff to raise a question of fact as to whether the statute of limitations had been tolled or an exception to the limitations period was applicable ( see Flintlock Constr. Servs., LLC v Rubin, Fiorella & Friedman, LLP , 188 AD3d 530, 531 [1st Dept 2020]).

Section 213(2) imposes a six-year limitations period on contract claims.

Marrero v. Thomas · filed 2026-06-17(2)

These proposed new causes of action are time-barred ( see CPLR 213[2]) and, therefore, patently devoid of merit ( see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v McAvoy , 188 AD3d 808, 810), as "the original pleading does not give notice of the transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences, to be proved pursuant to the amended pleading" (CPLR 203[f]).

Section 213’s six-year contract limitations period does not apply to cleanup costs recoverable under a statute imposing strict liability.

State v. Stewart's Ice Cream Co. · filed 1984-03-01

Next, we hold that the three-year period of limitations set forth in CPLR 214 (subd 2), rather than the six-year contract limitations period provided in CPLR 213, is applicable. None of the damages sought by plaintiff in this action represent payment to third persons to reimburse them for effectuating a cleanup. All of the damages represent the plaintiff’s clean-up costs for which, pursuant to section 181 of the Navigation Law, defendants are strictly liable.

Section 213(1) provides a six-year limitations period that would make this claim timely if it is treated as an action in equity.

Van Nostrand v. Town of Denning · filed 1987-12-03(1)

Regardless of whether this claim is characterized as one under CPLR article 78 or one in equity governed by the six-year limitations period of CPLR 213 (1) as claimed by plaintiff, we conclude that it is timely.

An action to determine title filed more than eight years after the claim accrued is untimely under CPLR 213 (1).

Kelly v. City of Beacon · filed 1988-05-23(1)

Accordingly, regardless of whether the limitations period of RPTL 1020 (3) (c) or the limitations period of CPLR 213 (1) is applied, the plaintiff’s action to determine title is untimely and the question of whether he received constitutionally adequate notice of the subsequent conveyance of the premises is academic.

CPLR 213(8)'s six-year fraud period does not apply when alleged fraud merely accomplishes a conversion and adds nothing essential to the claim.

Garber v. Ravitch · filed 1992-10-01(8)

Plaintiffs argument that her cause of action is one for fraud, not replevin, and is therefore governed by the six-year limitation period set forth in CPLR 213 (8), not the three-year period set forth in CPLR 214 (3), is without merit. ... Here, the alleged fraud being merely the means of accomplishing the conversion of plaintiffs property, it adds nothing to a cause of action sounding in replevin.

CPLR 213(2)’s six-year limitations period does not apply to a breach-of-contract claim involving the sale of cooperative apartment shares; the UCC’s four-year period applies.

McLeod v. Cowles · filed 1995-05-08(2)

Thus, contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, their action for breach of contract was subject to the four-year Statute of Limitations set forth under UCC 2-725 (1) and not the six-year Statute of Limitations contained at CPLR 213 (2) (see generally, ALH Prop. Ten v 306-100th St. Owners Corp., 191 AD2d 1; Silverman v Alcoa Plaza Assocs., 37 AD2d 166).

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

Sievert v. Morlef Holding Co. · filed 1995-10-31(2)

The cross claim was not barred by the Statute of Limitations as that claim was viable at the time the underlying action was commenced (see, Imperial Outfitters to Large Men v Genesco, Inc., 95 AD2d 755, 756; Colichio v Bailey, 77 AD2d 694; Seligson v Chase Manhattan Bank, 50 AD2d 206, 209-210; CPLR 213 [2]).

Section 213’s six-year limitations period does not apply to a challenge to a medical-discipline consent order that is a final agency determination.

Saraf v. Vacanti · filed 1996-01-11

Petitioner’s contention that the negotiated consent order created a contract between the 'parties governed by the six-year Statute of Limitations (see, CPLR 213) is without merit. Rather, as respondents contend, the consent order is, by regulation (see, 10 NYCRR 51.10 [c]), a final determination of charges of professional misconduct governed by the four-month Statute of Limitations under CPLR 217 (1).

Section 213’s six-year limitations period does not bar a request to enter a QDRO made within the year the pension holder reaches pay status.

Duhamel v. Duhamel · filed 2002-12-12(1) and (2)

Defendant claimed the entry of the QDRO was time-barred under Civil Practice Law and Rules § 213 (1) and (2). ... The court found as a matter of law that the six-year limitations period relating to the defendant’s action accrued after he reached pay status in the retirement benefits. ... Since plaintiff sought entry of the proposed QDRO under the parties’ judgment of divorce within the same year of defendant’s retirement her request was not time-barred. ... This court is not persuaded that McCoy v Feinman compels a different result in this case. Defendant’s request for declaratory relief is denied again in its entirety.

Section 213 sets a six-year limitations period for contract and fraud claims and for actions with no more specific limitations period.

Oechsner v. Connell Ltd. Partnership · filed 2003-09-16

A New York State court, regardless of whether it applied New York law or Massachusetts law, would inevitably conclude that all claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations. ... N.Y. CPLR § 213 (6 year statute of limitations for breach of contract, fraud, and actions for which no other limitation is specifically prescribed); ... Because plaintiffs’ claims accrued in 1987, when they became participants in the CLP benefits plans and were able to compare exactly how their benefits differed from those they had received as Avondale employees, all of their “federal common law” causes of action are time barred.

Section 213(1) provides a six-year limitations period that bars an action commenced after the period expires.

Babu v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc. · filed 2010-04-20(1)

The plaintiff does not dispute ... that the instant action is governed by a six-year statute of limitations period (see 16 NYCRR 230.2; see also CPLR 213 [1]). In support of its motion, the defendant established, prima facie, that the action was untimely because the six-year statute of limitations expired before the plaintiff commenced this action (see Swift v New York Med. Coll., 25 AD3d 686, 687 [2006]; Savarese v Shatz, 273 AD2d 219 [2000]).

Section 213 bars claims that accrued more than six years before the action commenced.

KILLIAN, PATRICIA KAREN v. CAPTAIN SPICER'S GALLERY, LLC · filed 2016-06-17

Plaintiff concedes that Supreme Court properly concluded that the statute of limitations barred all of her claims that accrued prior to August 2006, i.e., more than six years prior to the commencement of the action (see generally CPLR 213).

Section 213 provides a six-year limitations period for contract and unjust enrichment claims.

Bigsby v. Barclays Capital Real Estate, Inc. · filed 2018-03-28

The statutes of limitations for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and conversion claims under California law are all shorter than or equal to New York's. Compare N.Y. C.P.L.R. §§ 213(2) (contract claim subject to six-year statute of limitations), 213(1) (unjust enrichment claim subject to six-year statute of limitations), 214(3) (conversion claim subject to three-year statute of limitations), with Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 337(1) (contract claim subject to four-year statute of limitations), 339(1) (unjust enrichment claim subject to two-year statute of limitations), 338(c)(1) (conversion claim subject to three-year statute of limitations).

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

Reynolds v. Behrman Brothers Management Corporation · filed 2020-04-23(2)

Both New York and Alabama provide a six-year statute of limitations for contract claims. See N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 213(2); Ala. Code. § 6-2-34(4). ... The statute of limitations defense is rejected at this stage.