N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 213

For fraud claims, the limitations period generally begins when the fraud is discovered or could have been discovered with reasonable diligence.

Haberbush v. Christensen · filed 1984-07-26(8)

Ordinarily, a cause of action for fraud does not accrue until the fraud is discovered or, with reasonable diligence, could have been discovered (CPLR 213, subd 8).

For an actual fraud claim, the limitations period uses a discovery accrual rule.

Di Maio v. State · filed 1985-03-15(8)

Based on the above statement of law it is this court’s opinion that claimant has set forth facts sufficient to allege an action for actual fraud to which a discovery accrual rule applies (CPLR 213 [8]; see also, McLaughlin, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR 213:9, p 328).

Subsection 8 gives six years to sue for fraud from when the plaintiff discovered or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it.

Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Pappadio · filed 1985-04-178

Consequently, the statute of limitations applicable to plaintiff’s allegations is contained in NYCPLR § 213 subd. 8, six years from “the time the plaintiff ... discovered the fraud, or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it.”

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

Medicare&medicaid Gu 35,373 Eugene Hollander v. Stanley Brezenoff, Commissioner of the Department of Social Services of · filed 1986-04-10(2)

The statute of limitations applicable to contracts is viewed more strictly by New York than by federal courts. ... Thus, an action to recover upon such liability is governed by the three-year statutory limitations period. ... Consequently there is no basis upon which to impose the six-year limitations period.

For actual fraud, the limitations period is six years from the fraud or two years from its discovery.

Mechanical Plastics Corp. v. Rawlplug Co. · filed 1986-04-14(8)

The Statute of Limitations for actual fraud is six years from the commission of the fraud or two years from the time of discovery (see, CPLR 213 [8]; 203 [f]; Abbate v Abbate, 82 AD2d 368, 386; Quadrozzi Concrete Corp. v Mastroianni, 56 AD2d 353, 358, appeal dismissed 42 NY2d 824).

Section 213(2) gives actions upon a contractual obligation a six-year limitations period.

Brignoli v. Balch Hardy and Scheinman, Inc. · filed 1986-09-30(2)

Although the motion to dismiss the contract claims is denied, Brignoli may not seek damages for the years prior to 1980. The limitations period for actions upon a contractual obligation is six years. See CPLR § 213(2).

Section 213(1) bars claims for child support arrears accruing more than six years before the proceeding begins.

Thompson v. Lindblad · filed 1986-12-15(1)

Special Term did, however, properly determine that the Statute of Limitations operates as a bar to the claims for child support arrears which accrued more than six years prior to the institution of this proceeding (see, Tauber v Lebow, 65 NY2d 596; CPLR 213 [1]).

Section 213(8) supplies the limitations period for fraud claims, including the applicable discovery rule.

Scally v. Simcona Electronic Corp. · filed 1987-12-18(8)

Further, these fraud claims, commenced in 1985, are barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations (CPLR 213 [8]; 203 [f]).

CPLR 213(8) requires a fraud action to be commenced within six years after accrual or within two years after discovery of the fraud, whichever is longer.

Kaufman v. Kaufman · filed 1987-12-28(8)

The alleged fraud was uncovered at the earliest in 1983 and therefore this action, brought in 1985, was timely commenced (see, CPLR 213 [8]).

Section 213(8) bars claims brought after the applicable statute of limitations period has expired.

DeNatalie v. Mazza · filed 1988-12-29(8)

We find that the counterclaims should have been dismissed as they are barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations (see, CPLR 213 [8]; 210 [b]). Daniel Mazza did not seek an accounting of the decedent’s activities with respect to the assets of the corporate defendant until the counterclaims were interposed in this action, which was commenced on July 8, 1987. As almost 12 years had passed since Charles Mazza’s death, Daniel Mazza’s claims are clearly untimely.

Section 213(8) requires a fraud action to be commenced within six years of the fraud, subject to the later applicable discovery period.

Armstrong v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. · filed 1989-05-09(8)

With respect to the merits of the Statute of Limitations defense, an action based upon fraud must be commenced within six years from the commission of the fraud or two years from its actual or imputed discovery, whichever is later (CPLR 213 [8]; 203 [f]).

Section 213(8) gives a plaintiff six years to bring an action based on fraud when the fraud cause of action accrues.

Kodack v. Pratt · filed 1989-06-12(8)

Since the fraud cause of action accrued in 1979, the plaintiff had until 1985 to bring her action (see, CPLR 213 [8]; 203 [f]).

For fraud actions, CPLR 213(8) provides a six-year limitations period, measured from when the plaintiff discovered or could with reasonable diligence have discovered the fraud.

Harkin v. Culleton · filed 1989-06-28(8)

"The following actions must be commenced within six years * * * "an action based upon fraud; the time within which the action must be commenced shall be computed from the time the plaintiff of the person under whom he claims discovered the fraud, or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it.”

For an actual fraud claim, section 213(8) allows six years from the fraudulent act or two years from discovery, or when it could reasonably have been discovered, whichever is longer.

Schlotthauer v. Sanders · filed 1989-08-28(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]; Del Vecchio v Nassau County, 118 AD2d 615).

Section 213(8) provides a six-year limitations period for fraud actions, subject to its discovery rule.

Singer v. Jefferies & Co. · filed 1990-04-05(8)

Under the circumstances herein, we disagree with the ruling of the IAS court that the one-year period governed and hold that the six-year time period in which actions for fraud must be raised is applicable in the case herein. (See, CPLR 213 [8].)

Section 213 supplies the applicable statute of limitations in an action at law, making laches unavailable.

Republic Insurance v. Real Development Co. · filed 1990-05-03

The equitable defense of laches is unavailable in this action at law, where dispositive consideration must be given to the applicable Statute of Limitations (T.R. Am. Chems. v Seaboard Sur. Co., 116 Misc 2d 874, 879-880; CPLR 213).

Section 213 bars a claim to reform an agreement after the applicable limitations period has expired.

In re 100 William Co. v. Aetna Insurance · filed 1990-07-12

Inasmuch as it now seeks to "reform” the agreement with respect to the manner of calculating the operating escalation, that claim is barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations. (CPLR 213.)

Section 213(8) requires fraud actions to be commenced within six years, subject to the two-year discovery period under CPLR 203(f), with the longer period controlling.

Block v. First Blood Associates · filed 1990-07-16(8)

These fraud claims, governed by the two-tiered statute of limitations contained in sections 213 and 203(f) of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (“CPLR”), must be brought within two years of the time plaintiff discovered or could have discovered the fraud with reasonable diligence or within six years of the fraud itself, whichever is later.

Section 213(8) provides a six-year limitations period for fraud actions, measured from when the fraud was discovered or could reasonably have been discovered.

Hartford Fire Insurance v. Advocate · filed 1990-09-24(8)

We further note that, contrary to Advocate’s contention, the insurance company was not precluded by the Statute of Limitations from bringing this action. The six-year Statute of Limitations applies because the gravamen of this lawsuit is based on fraud (see, CPLR 213 [8]). Advocate’s fraud is evident in that he intentionally procured the fire which gave rise to the partnership’s claim against the insurance company (see, PJI 4:80 1989 [Supp]) and he allowed the partnership to file a proof of loss statement which stated that the cause and origin of the loss were unknown. The time within which the action must be commenced is computed from the time the insurance company or the person under whom it claims, to wit, the partnership, discovered the fraud or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it (see, CPLR 213 [8]; see, e.g., Kaufman v Kaufman, 135 AD2d 786).

Section 213(8) applies the longer fraud limitations period when the complaint alleges at least a semblance of fraud, and its two-year discovery rule may apply when the plaintiff diligently investigates.

Petrou v. Karl Ehmer International Foods, Inc. · filed 1990-11-05(8)

When a plaintiff asserts causes of action sounding in both fraud and conversion, the longer Statute of Limitations period for fraud (see, CPLR 213 [8]) will apply, provided that the complaint sets forth at least a semblance of the elements of fraud at that stage (see, Central Trust Co. v Goldman, 70 AD2d 767). The two-year discovery rule (see, CPLR 213 [8]; 203 [f]) may apply, provided that the plaintiff uses diligent efforts to uncover the fraud.

Section 213 provides a six-year limitations period for fraud, and subsection (8) applies a discovery of injury rule to accrual.

Local 144, Hotel, Hospital, Nursing Home & Allied Services Union v. C.N.H. Management Associates, Inc. · filed 1990-12-11(8)

Under New York Law, the statute of limitations for fraud is six years. C.P.L.R. § 213. ... As Neiman’s fraud claim against the Union is based on the same alleged misrepresentations as constituted the § 1983 claim against the State and the Union, and the same rule of accrual, i.e., the time of discovery of the injury, applies in this action pursuant to CPLR 213(8), as in the § 1983 action pursuant to federal law, the point of accrual of both claims is the same: in 1981.

Section 213(8) gives six years to bring an action based on fraud.

Finkel v. Stratton Corp. · filed 1991-01-03(8)

The New York Statute of limitations for actions based on fraud is six years, N.Y. CPLR § 213(8), and so their claims were timely filed unless Ceres should be applied retroactively, a question the Second Circuit left open.

Section 213(1) requires an actual fraud action to be commenced within six years after the fraud or within two years after its discovery or reasonable discoverability, whichever is later.

Goldstein v. Winard · filed 1991-05-07(1)

Special Term properly denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the causes of action alleging breach of fiduciary duty and constructive fraud, as barred by the six year Statute of Limitations, under CPLR 213 (1). Examination of the complaint discloses that it states a claim for actual fraud, such that the action should have been commenced within six years after commission of the fraud, or two years from the time plaintiff discovered, or could with reasonable diligence have discovered, the fraud, whichever is later.

Section 213(8) requires a fraud action to be commenced within six years of the fraud or within two years after its alleged or imputed discovery, whichever is longer.

K&E Trading & Shipping, Inc. v. Radmar Trading Corp. · filed 1991-06-06(8)

An action based on fraud must be commenced within six years from the date of the commission of the fraud or two years after its alleged or imputed discovery, whichever is longer (CPLR 213 [8]; 203 [f]; Schmidt v McKay, 555 F2d 30).

Section 213(1) applies a six-year limitations period for constructive fraud running from the fraud, while section 213(8) applies six years from actual fraud or two years from its discovery or when it reasonably could have been discovered.

Rattner v. York · filed 1991-06-24(1), (8)

If Rattner’s allegations are construed as making out a case of constructive fraud, the cause of action accrued at the time the alleged fraud was committed, i.e., in November 1968 and it would be barred by the six-year Statute of Limitations provided in CPLR 213 (1), which period began to run at the time the fraud was committed (see, 509 Sixth Ave. Corp. v New York City Tr. Auth., 15 NY2d 48; Mattera v Mattera, 125 AD2d 555). ... On the other hand, if Rattner’s complaint is construed as alleging a cause of action based upon actual fraud, it is governed by the Statute of Limitations provided for under CPLR 213 (8), which runs six years from the date the alleged fraud was committed, or two years from the date she discovered, or with reasonable diligence could have discovered, the fraud (see, Quadrozzi Concrete Corp. v Mastroianni, 56 AD2d 353).

Section 213(8) requires fraud actions to be commenced within six years.

State v. Bronxville Glen I Associates · filed 1992-03-12(8)

We hold that the applicable period of limitation is six years pursuant to CPLR 213 (8), and not three years pursuant to CPLR 214.

Section 213(8) gives fraud actions a six-year limitations period, subject to the applicable discovery rule.

Shapiro v. Hersch · filed 1992-04-02(8)

Acknowledging that the action was commenced well beyond the six-year Statute of Limitations set forth in CPLR 213 (8), plaintiff argues that he is entitled to the two-year discovery rule for fraud set forth in CPLR 203 (f) because he did not know of the fraud until the I.R.S. audited his tax return in June 1987. The argument lacks merit because, as the IAS court found, the underlying facts of the fraud were well publicized in 1985 and 1986, and, with due diligence, could have been discovered by the plaintiff at that time.

CPLR § 213(8) requires an actual fraud action to be commenced within six years of the fraudulent act or within two years of discovery, or when it could have been discovered with due diligence, whichever is longer.

Schoen v. Martin · filed 1992-11-05(8)

The essential procedural difference between actual and constructive fraud is that a cause of action for actual fraud must be commenced within six years from the date of the fraudulent act or two years from the date the plaintiff discovered the fraud, or could with due diligence have discovered it, whichever is longer (CPLR 213 [8]; 203 [f]; Del Vecchio v Nassau County, 118 AD2d, supra, at 617).

The six-year limitations period for fraud claims applies when the alleged fraud could reasonably have been discovered.

Zeide v. National Casualty Co. · filed 1992-11-16(8)

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the defendant’s counterclaim was interposed within the six-year Statute of Limitations, since the defendant could not have reasonably discovered the alleged fraud until 1986, when the summons and complaint were served (see, CPLR 213 [8]).

Section 213(8) generally requires an action based on actual fraud to be commenced within six years of the fraud.

Garguilio v. Garguilio · filed 1994-02-22(8)

Pursuant to CPLR 213 (8), a cause of action based upon actual fraud must generally be commenced within six years of the commission of the fraud.

For mortgage foreclosure claims with installment payments and no exercised acceleration, the six-year limitations period runs separately from each installment's due date.

Pagano v. Smith · filed 1994-02-22(4)

Consequently, separate causes of action for each installment accrued, and the Statute of Limitations began to run, on the date each installment became due (see, Khoury v Alger, 174 AD2d 918; Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v Knox, 71 AD2d 763). The court therefore properly found that the action was not necessarily time-barred as to those installments due six years prior to 1986, when the action was commenced (see, CPLR 213 [4]).

The six-year limitations period for fraud actions applies to a claim for treble damages under Judiciary Law § 487.

New York City Transit Authority v. Eisen · filed 1994-04-19(8)

We have recently held that the six-year Statute of Limitations for fraud actions (CPLR 213 [8]), not the three-year Statute for actions to recover a penalty or forfeiture imposed by statute (CPLR 214 [2]), controls a cause of action for treble damages under Judiciary Law § 487 (Guardian Life Ins. Co. v Handel, 190 AD2d 57, 62), and thus we modify to reinstate plaintiffs second cause of action.

Section 213 provides a six-year limitations period for constructive trust actions, accruing when the trustee's interest becomes adverse or property is wrongfully withheld.

Mardiros v. Ghaly · filed 1994-07-11

The defendants also contend that the action is time-barred because the six-year Statute of Limitations started to run when the defendants allegedly had their names put on the deed surreptitiously (see, CPLR 213). ... It is well settled that the Statute of Limitations for the imposition of a constructive trust begins to run either (1) when the constructive trustee’s interest in the property first becomes adverse to the plaintiff’s interests, or (2) when the constructive trustee wrongfully withholds property acquired lawfully from the beneficiary (see, Sitkowski v Petzing, 175 AD2d 801). ... In this case, there are questions of fact as to when the Statute of Limitations began to run (see, Sitkowski v Petzing, supra, at 801).

Section 213(8) gives fraud claims six years from the wrong or two years from when the fraud was discovered or reasonably could have been discovered, whichever is later.

In re the Estate of Kraus · filed 1994-10-17(8)

We find that the Statute of Limitations for fraud expired in either 1986, which was six years from the date the agreements were executed (see, CPLR 213 [8]), or at the latest, in April of 1987, which was two years from the date that the petitioner was provided with enough information to discover the alleged fraud (see, CPLR 203 [f]; 213 [8]).

Section 213(6) requires reformation actions to be brought within six years, accruing when the alleged scrivener’s error occurred.

Wallace v. 600 Partners Co. · filed 1994-11-10(6)

An action for reformation is governed by a six-year Statute of Limitations which accrues at the time of the alleged scrivener’s error (CPLR 213 [6]; Lopata v Lopata, 196 AD2d 741, lv denied 82 NY2d 662; Burke Sec. v National Union Fire Ins. Co., 184 AD2d 1046; Ta Chun Wang v Chun Wong, 163 AD2d 300, lv denied 77 NY2d 804, cert denied 501 US 1252).

Section 213(8) requires an actual fraud action to be commenced within six years of the fraudulent act or within two years of discovering the fraud.

Monaco v. New York University Medical Center · filed 1995-03-07(8)

First, it is well-settled that a cause of action sounding in actual fraud must be commenced within six years from the date of the fraudulent act or two years from the date the party discovered the fraud or could, with due diligence, have discovered it (CPLR 213 [8]; 203 [g]; Schoen v Martin, 187 AD2d 253, 254; Smith v Sarkisian, 63 AD2d 780, 781, affd 47 NY2d 878).

Section 213(8) requires a fraud action to be commenced within six years of the fraudulent act or within two years after discovery or when discovery should have occurred with due diligence.

Ghandour v. Shearson Lehman Bros. · filed 1995-03-28(8)

A cause of action sounding in fraud must be commenced within 6 years from the date of the fraudulent act or 2 years from the date the party discovered the fraud or could, with due diligence, have discovered it (CPLR 213 [8]; 203 [g]; Schoen v Martin, 187 AD2d 253, 254; Smith v Sarkisian, 63 AD2d 780, 781, affd 47 NY2d 878).

CPLR 213(8) requires a fraud action to be commenced within six years after accrual or within two years after the fraud was discovered or could reasonably have been discovered, with the plaintiff bearing the burden of proving timely commencement.

Endervelt v. Slade · filed 1995-04-20(8)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered November 2, 1994, which, inter alia, determined that plaintiffs were precluded from testifying as to any affirmative action taken by the deceased Aleck Slade concerning a personal communication or transaction with them, or to any "negative facts” in order to establish a claim of fraud against the decedent’s estate, that the burden of proving that the actions were instituted within the two year discovery period of CPLR 213 (8) and 203 (g) remained with plaintiffs, and that the continuous representation doctrine did not toll the Statute of Limitations in plaintiffs’ actions for fraud after the date of its discovery, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Section 213(8) requires fraud actions to be commenced within the statutory limitations period.

Vassello v. Fine · filed 1996-05-06(8)

The plaintiff’s claims arose from alleged misrepresentations made by the defendants in a 1983 option agreement. The instant action was not commenced until November of 1992. Accordingly, this action was properly dismissed as untimely (see, CPLR 213 [8]).

Section 213(8) requires fraud actions within six years of the wrongful act or two years of discovery or reasonable discoverability, whichever period is longer.

Rostuca Holdings, Ltd. v. Polo · filed 1996-09-05(8)

The applicable Statute of Limitations (CPLR 203 [g]; 213 [8]) requires that an action for fraud be commenced within six years from the commission of the wrongful act, or within two years from the time the fraud was discovered, or with reasonable diligence should have been discovered, whichever period is longer.

Section 213(4) gives six years to commence an action based on a note, and a qualifying part payment tolls the limitations period.

Chemical Financial Services Corp. v. Zagaro · filed 1997-06-26(4)

Consequently, the court finds that the part payment made in or about November 1990 tolled the Statute of Limitations so that it did not begin to run until that date. Since this action was commenced in August 1994, well within six years thereof, this matter was timely commenced.

CPLR 213 provides limitation periods for contract and fraud actions.

Dimovich v. OnBank & Trust Co. · filed 1997-09-30[2], [8]

Further, the three causes of action in the complaint are also time-barred under the applicable Statutes of Limitation for contracts, fraud and torts (see, CPLR 213 [2], [8]; 214 [4]; see also, CPLR 203 [g]; Podraza v Carriero, 212 AD2d 331, 340, lv dismissed 86 NY2d 885).

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

Shannon v. Gordon · filed 1998-04-06(8)

The Statute of Limitations for a fraud claim is six years from the date of the commission of the fraud or two years after its actual or imputed discovery whichever is longer (see, CPLR 213 [8]; 203 [g]; Baratta v ABF Real Estate Co., 215 AD2d 518; K&E Trading & Shipping v Radmar Trading Corp., 174 AD2d 346, 347).

Section 213(8) gives actual fraud claims six years from commission or two years from discovery, whichever is greater.

Muhl v. Tiber Holding Corp. · filed 1998-08-24(8)

Unlike the statute of limitations for actual fraud, six years from the time that the fraud is committed, or two years from the time the plaintiff discovered the fraud or reasonably should have discovered it, whichever is greater, see C.P.L.R. § 213(8), there is no discovery rule applicable to the statute of limitations for constructive fraud.

Section 213(8) generally requires an actual fraud action to be commenced within six years of the fraud, subject to the discovery rule in CPLR 203(f).

Freda v. McNamara · filed 1998-10-05(8)

It is well settled that under CPLR 213 (8) an action to recover damages “based on actual fraud must generally be commenced within six years of the commission of the fraud” (Piedra v Vanover, 174 AD2d 191, 194). However, “this provision must be read with subdivision (f) of CPLR 203, which provides that an action may be commenced within two years after actual or imputed discovery of the fraud, even though more than six years has elapsed from the commission of the wrong” (Piedra v Vanover, supra, at 194; see also, Barristers Abstract Corp. v Caulfield, 203 AD2d 406).

Section 213(8) requires an action based on fraud to be commenced within six years.

Bin Chambi v. Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays & Handler · filed 1999-01-19(8)

Whatever the merits of plaintiffs claims against Stricken, his allegedly fraudulent acts occurred in 1981, and any cause of action against him for fraud is time-barred by the six-year Statute of Limitations (CPLR 213 [8]).

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

Tenants United at: 20 Magaw Place v. Attorney General · filed 1999-04-01(8)

Assuming, as plaintiffs allege, that defendants fraudulently concealed for 25 years that proper and timely notices of the right to buy apartments at insider prices were not given to tenants holding leases at the time of the conversion, the action was properly dismissed as time-barred, given evidence of extensive prior proceedings concerning the conversion and absent any explanation why evidence of this fraud could not have been discovered sooner (CPLR 213 [8]; 203 [g]).

Subsection 213(8) requires a fraud action to be commenced within six years of the fraud, subject to the longer discovery period provided by CPLR 203(g).

Jeffrey BB. v. Cardinal McCloskey School & Home for Children · filed 1999-05-06(8)

An action based upon fraud must be commenced within six years from the time of the fraud (see, CPLR 213 [8]) or within two years from the time the fraud was, or with reasonable diligence could have been, discovered, whichever is longer (see, CPLR 203 [g]).

Section 213(1) requires constructive fraud actions to be brought within six years of the alleged fraud.

Old Republic Insurance v. Hansa World Cargo Service, Inc. · filed 1999-06-01(1)

New York’s statute of limitations for constructive fraud is six years, calculated from the time of the commission of the alleged fraud.

Section 213 provides a six-year limitations period for fraud actions, but that period does not apply when the alleged fraud is incidental to a products liability claim.

St. Patrick's Home for the Aged & Infirm v. Laticrete International, Inc. · filed 1999-09-28

While the Statute of Limitations for fraud actions is six years (CPLR 213 [§]), we are constrained to dismiss this claim as untimely based upon the holding in New York Seven-Up Bottling Co. v Dow Chem. Co. (96 AD2d 1051, affd for reasons stated 61 NY2d 828).

Section 213(4) requires mortgage foreclosure actions to be commenced within six years.

Albin v. Pearson · filed 1999-11-29(4)

Furthermore, since it is undisputed that the appellant failed to commence an action to foreclose the third and fourth mortgages within the six-year Statute of Limitations (see, CPLR 213 [4]), the Supreme Court properly granted the respondent summary judgment cancelling and discharging those mortgages.

Section 213(8) requires an action based on fraud to be commenced within six years.

Maio v. Gardino · filed 1999-12-23(8)

The six-year Statute of Limitations found in CPLR 213 (8) is a bar to this claim (see, Siegman v Rosen, 248 AD2d 180).

Section 213(8) requires a fraud action to be commenced within six years after the fraud and within two years after the plaintiff knew or should have known of it.

Stevens v. Eaton · filed 1999-12-27(8)

The defendant failed to establish that this action was commenced more than six years after the alleged fraud and more than two years after the plaintiffs knew or should have known of the alleged fraud (see, CPLR 213 [8]; Shannon v Gordon, 249 AD2d 291).

Section 213(8) requires a fraud action to be brought within six years of the fraud or within two years of when it was or reasonably could have been discovered, whichever is longer.

Yatter v. William Morris Agency, Inc. · filed 2000-01-20(8)

A cause of action for fraud must be brought within six years from the time of the fraud or within two years from the time the fraud was, or with reasonable diligence could have been, discovered, whichever is longer (see, CPLR 213 [8]; 203 [g]; Juman v Louise Wise Servs., 254 AD2d 72, 73; Goldberg v Manufacturers Life Ins. Co., 242 AD2d 175, 180, lv denied 92 NY2d 1000; Rostuca Holdings v Polo, 231 AD2d 402, 403).

A fraud action may be commenced within six years, or within two years after the plaintiff discovered or reasonably should have discovered the fraud, whichever period ends later.

Lamendola v. Mossa · filed 2000-12-15(8)

With respect to the cause of action for fraud, the action must have been commenced within six years or within two years from the time plaintiff discovered or should with reasonable diligence have discovered the fraud, whichever is later. (CPLR 213 [8]; 203 [g].)

Section 213(8) gives fraud claims a six-year statute of limitations.

Lewis v. Rosenfeld · filed 2001-03-08(8)

A fraud claim is subject to a six-year statute of limitations. See N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 213(8) (McKinney 1990).

For a fraud claim, the limitations period is two years from discovery or six years from commission, whichever is later, but it does not apply when fraud allegations are incidental to another cause of action.

Prohaska v. Sofamor, S.N.C. · filed 2001-03-31(8)

Mrs. Prohaska alleges personal injury arising from implantation of the C-D device. The fraudulent misrepresentation claim is incidental to her personal injury claim. The fraud statute of limitations does not apply here. See Larkins v. Glaxo Wellcome, Inc., 1999 WL 360204 at *10 (E.D.N.Y. May 20, 1999) (a failure to warn claim is governed by the three-year statute of limitations).

Section 213 sets six-year limitations periods for constructive fraud and actual fraud, while actual fraud may instead be brought within two years after discovery with reasonable diligence.

Dubovsky v. Dubovsky · filed 2001-05-07(1), (8)

The law is well settled that pursuant to CPLR 213 (8) and 203 (g) an action sounding in actual fraud must be commenced within six years of the commission of the fraud, or within two years after the fraud was or should have been discovered through the exercise of reasonable diligence. An action sounding in constructive fraud, governed by the six-year Statute of Limitations set forth in CPLR 213 (1), does not get the benefit of the two years from discovery exception.

CPLR 213(8) requires an actual fraud action to be brought within six years of the fraud or within two years of its actual or imputed discovery.

Richmond v. Norotsky · filed 2001-06-04(8)

A cause of action based upon actual fraud must be interposed within six years of its commission, or within two years of its actual or imputed discovery (see, CPLR 213 [8]; 203 [g]; Julian v Carroll, 270 AD2d 457).

CPLR 213(8) requires an action based on fraud to be commenced within six years.

Goldring v. Goldring · filed 2002-01-29(8)

The action, which was commenced in June 2000 and seeks to set aside a 1987 separation agreement on the ground of fraud, is barred by the six-year statute of limitations (CPLR 213 [8]), and is not saved by the two-year discovery rule (CPLR 203 [g]).

Section 213(4) gives mortgage foreclosure actions a six-year limitations period that runs from acceleration of the debt.

Lavin v. Elmakiss · filed 2003-02-06(4)

The six-year statute of limitations in a mortgage foreclosure action begins to run from the due date for each unpaid installment unless the debt has been accelerated; once the debt has been accelerated by a demand or commencement of an action, the entire sum becomes due and the statute of limitations begins to run on the entire mortgage (see Loiacono v Goldberg, 240 AD2d 476, 477; see also CPLR 213 [4]; Saini v Cinelli Enters., 289 AD2d 770, 771, lv denied 98 NY2d 602).

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

Hoffenberg v. Hoffman & Pollok · filed 2003-03-05(8)

The statute of limitations for a claim of fraud is six years from the commission of the fraud or two years from the time of discovery, whichever is later.

Fraud actions must be commenced within six years of the alleged fraud, or within two years after the fraud was discovered or should reasonably have been discovered.

Anonymous v. Anonymous · filed 2004-02-09

The statute of limitations for commencing an action based in fraud is "six years from the date that the alleged fraud was committed, or two years from the date the fraud was discovered or, with the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have been discovered." ( see CPLR 213; 203 [g]).

Section 213(8) requires fraud actions to be commenced within six years, measured from discovery or when the fraud could reasonably have been discovered.

G-I Holdings, Inc. v. Those Parties Listed on Exhibit a (In Re G-I Holdings, Inc.) · filed 2004-06-08(8)

The six-year limitations period is governed by New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 213(8) which states: “The following actions must be commenced within six years: an action based upon fraud; the time within which the action must be commenced shall be computed from the time the plaintiff or the person under whom he [or she] claims discovered the fraud, or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it.”

Section 213(8) permits a fraud action only within six years of the fraud or two years of its discovery, whichever is longer.

St. Clement v. Londa · filed 2004-06-10(8)

This action was dismissed as time barred, having been commenced in May 2002, more than six years after commission of the alleged fraud (CPLR 213 [8]), and well more than two years after its purported discovery during the course of litigation (CPLR 203 Eg]; see Julian v Carroll, 270 AD2d 457 [2000]).

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

Wynn v. Security Mutual Insurance · filed 2004-11-19(8)

We nonetheless conclude that defendants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the ground that this action is barred by the six-year limitations period for fraud (see CPLR 213 [8]), and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]).

A fraud action must be brought by the later of six years after accrual or two years after the fraud was discovered or reasonably could have been discovered.

State v. Robin Operating Corp. · filed 2005-03-24(8)

An action based on 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 CPLR 203 [g]).

Section 213(8) governs the statute of limitations for actual fraud claims.

Transport Workers Union of America Local 100 v. Schwartz · filed 2005-04-19(8)

However, the fifth cause of action, alleging actual fraud, was erroneously dismissed under the statute of limitations (CPLR 213 [8]) on an apparent misreading of plaintiffs’ argument.

Section 213(8) requires fraud actions to be commenced within six years after accrual or two years after discovery, or when discovery could reasonably have occurred.

The Topps Co., Inc. v. SAIC · filed 2005-08-02(8)

Under New York law, actions based on fraud must be commenced within “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.” N.Y. C.P.L.R. 213(8) (Con-sol.2004) (effective Aug. 17, 2004).

Section 213(8) sets the limitations period for fraud claims, including the period tied to discovery of the fraud.

Kenny v. RBC Royal Bank · filed 2005-10-20(8)

The court properly dismissed plaintiffs claims against defendant for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty as barred by the statute of limitations (see CPLR 213 [8]; 203 [g]). The alleged fraudulent act occurred in late 1982 when plaintiff invested in a tax shelter. Plaintiff admittedly had knowledge of the purported fraud in 1994, but did not commence the instant action until November 2003.

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

Saphir International, SA v. UBS PaineWebber Inc. · filed 2006-01-03(8)

An action alleging a cause of action for fraud must be commenced within six years from the time of the fraud or within two years from the time the fraud was discovered or, with reasonable diligence, could have been discovered (see CPLR 213 [8]; 203 [g]; Miller v Polow, 14 AD3d 368 [2005]; Yatter v William Morris Agency, 268 AD2d 335 [2000]).

For a mortgage foreclosure, the six-year limitations period begins when an installment is due, full payment may be demanded, or the mortgage is accelerated by demand or an action.

Pidwell v. Duvall · filed 2006-04-06(4)

Initially, we are unpersuaded by defendant’s contention that this action is time-barred pursuant to CPLR 213 (4). Notably, “[t]he [s]tatute of [l]imitations in a mortgage foreclosure action begins to run six years from the due date for each unpaid installment or the time the mortgagee is entitled to demand full payment, or when the mortgage has been accelerated by a demand or an action is brought” (Saini v Cinelli Enters., 289 AD2d 770, 771 [2001], lv denied 98 NY2d 602 [2002]). According to defendant, a 1993 letter to Duvall from an attorney representing Briggs and Ward commenced the running of the statute of limitations because it stated that, if Duvall failed to make certain payments in the future, it would “result in the entire balance of said Note and Mortgage being called all due and payable.” In our view, Supreme Court correctly held that the letter discussing a possible future event did not constitute an exercise of the first mortgage’s optional acceleration clause (see 78 NY Jur 2d, Mortgages and Deeds of Trust § 459) and, therefore, the subject action was timely commenced.

Section 213 makes a breach of contract action subject to a six-year limitations period and a fraud action time-barred when brought more than two years after discovery.

Adrian v. Canuso · filed 2006-04-25(2), (8)

Since this action was commenced 15 years after construction of the house was complete, and the statute of limitations for a breach of contract action is six years, the action is time-barred (see CPLR 213 [2]). ... Moreover, we note that even if the plaintiffs had a viable cause of action to recover damages for fraud, it would nevertheless be time-barred, since this action was commenced more than two years after the plaintiffs discovered the alleged fraud, which was, according to the complaint, in 1999 (see CPLR 213 [8]).

Section 213(8) gives fraud actions a six-year limitations period, subject to the applicable discovery period.

Lefkowitz v. Ka-Shing · filed 2006-06-27(8)

Plaintiffs claims are also time-barred, the action having been commenced more than six years after the alleged fraud took place and more than two years after plaintiff could have discovered it (CPLR 213 [8]; 203 [g]; see Lefkowitz v Appelbaum, 258 AD2d 563 [1999]).

Section 213(8) gives fraud claims the longer of a six-year period after the fraud occurs or a two-year period after it is discovered.

Tenamee v. Schmukler · filed 2006-07-13(8)

The statute of limitations for fraud in New York is the longer of six years after the fraud occurs, or two years after it is discovered. See Monaco v. N.Y. Univ. Med. Ctr., 213 A.D.2d 167, 623 N.Y.S.2d 566, 568 (App. Div. 1st Dep’t 1995). See also CPLR § 213(8); CPLR § 203(g).

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

Kwan v. Schlein · filed 2006-07-14(8)

Plaintiffs claim for fraud is barred by New York’s six-year statute of limitations. See N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 213(8); Santiago v. 1370 Broadway, 96 N.Y.2d 765, 725 N.Y.S.2d 599, 749 N.E.2d 168, 169 (2001).

Section 213(8) provides a six-year statute of limitations for an action to recover damages for fraud.

Goldstein v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance · filed 2006-09-12(8)

The cause of action to recover damages for fraud is barred by the six-year statute of limitations (see CPLR 213 [8]).

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

Espie v. Murphy · filed 2006-12-05(8)

A cause of action alleging fraud must be commenced within six years after the date on which the cause of action accrued or within two years after the time the plaintiff could have discovered the fraud with reasonable diligence (see CPLR 213 [8]).

For fraudulent construction claims, § 213(8) allows the greater of six years from accrual or two years from when the fraud was or reasonably could have been discovered.

Rite Aid of New York, Inc. v. R.A. Real Estate, Inc. · filed 2007-05-24(8)

While a cause of action alleging fraudulent construction may be within the greater of six years from accrual of the cause of action or two years from the time the fraud was or could with reasonable diligence have been discovered (CPLR 213 [8]; Cappelli v Berkshire Life Ins. Co., 276 AD2d 458 [2000]), here the alleged fraud should have been discovered at the time of construction, which took place under the supervision of the landlord’s architect, or at the latest when plaintiff tenant discovered foundation issues in 2000 and the landlord retained engineers and architects to alleviate the problem.

Section 213(8) gives actions based on fraud a six-year statute of limitations.

Baena v. Woori Bank · filed 2007-09-11(8)

I conclude that the claims for fraud are properly governed by the six year statute of limitation set forth in CPLR § 213(8) and Counts III and IV are timely.

Section 213(8) gives fraud claims the longer of six years from accrual or two years from when the fraud was or reasonably could have been discovered.

Kottler v. Deutsche Bank AG · filed 2009-01-09(8)

The statute of limitations for fraud and for aiding and abetting fraud in New York is “the greater of six years from the date the cause of action accrued or two years from the time the plaintiff or person under whom the plaintiff claims discovered the fraud, or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it.” N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 213(8). ... The Court finds that the Plaintiffs did not file their complaint within six years from the date that the cause of action accrued, and that Plaintiffs were on inquiry notice of the fraudulent tax scheme more than two years prior to filing their complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ cause of action for fraud based on the OPIS transactions is barred by the statute of limitations.

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

Sargiss v. Magarelli · filed 2009-06-04(8)

With respect to the timeliness of plaintiffs action, a fraud-based action must be commenced within six years of the fraud or within two years from the time the plaintiff discovered the fraud or “could with reasonable diligence have discovered it” (CPLR 213 [8]; see CPLR 203 Eg]).

Section 213(8) bars an untimely action when the plaintiff knew of the alleged fraud years before filing.

Bettis v. Kelly · filed 2009-12-17(8)

Given plaintiffs admission that he was aware of defendants’ alleged fraud in January 2002, this action, commenced in 2007, alleging claims that defendants violated his rights to equal protection and due process and that defendants violated section 75 of the Civil Service Law and section 14-115 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York, was properly dismissed as barred by the statute of limitations (see CPLR 213 [8]).

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

Robinson v. Robles · filed 2010-05-27(2)

The applicable statute of limitations for this contract action is six years. CPLR 213 (2).

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

Shalik v. Hewlett Associates, L.P. · filed 2012-03-20(8)

Pursuant to CPLR 213 (8), an action alleging fraud must be commenced by “the greater of six years from the date the cause of action accrued or two years from the time the plaintiff or the person under whom the plaintiff claims discovered the fraud, or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it” (CPLR 213 [8]).

Section 213(8) requires a fraud action to be commenced within six years of the fraud or within two years after the plaintiff discovered it or could have discovered it with reasonable diligence.

Elhannon, LLC v. Brenda J. DeLuca Trust · filed 2013-07-11(8)

An action alleging fraud must be commenced within six years of the date the fraud occurred or within two years from the time that the plaintiff discovered the fraud or could have done so with reasonable diligence (see CPLR 213 [8]; Sargiss v Magarelli, 12 NY3d 527, 532 [2009]; US Bank N.A. v Gestetner, 103 AD3d 962, 963 [2013]).

Section 213(8) gives a fraud claim the longer of six years from accrual or two years from when the fraud could have been discovered with reasonable diligence.

Delaware County v. Leatherstocking Healthcare · filed 2013-10-17(8)

The statute of limitations for a fraud claim is the greater of six years after accrual or two years from when it could have been discovered with reasonable diligence (see CPLR 213 [8]; US Bank N.A. v Gestetner, 103 AD3d 962, 963 [2013]; McCormick v Favreau, 82 AD3d 1537, 1539 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 712 [2011]). Inasmuch as plaintiffs fraud cause of action relates solely to the execution of the contract of sale in 2005, it is barred by the six-year statute of limitations.

Section 213(8) gives a plaintiff alleging fraud six years from accrual or two years from when the fraud could have been discovered with reasonable diligence, whichever is later.

Banker v. Vitanza · filed 2014-03-12(8)

A cause of action alleging fraud must be commenced within six years after the date on which the cause of action accrued or within two years after the time the plaintiff could, with reasonable diligence, have discovered the alleged fraud, whichever is later (see CPLR 213 [8]; Espie v Murphy, 35 AD3d 346, 347 [2006]).

A defendant seeking to dismiss a fraud action as untimely under CPLR 213(8) must first show that the limitations period has expired.

Papa v. Fairfield on the Green · filed 2014-12-24(8)

Here, the defendant failed to meet its prima facie burden of establishing that the action was time-barred (see CPLR 213 [8]; Chung v Wang, 79 AD3d 693, 694 [2010]).

CPLR 213 gives a fraud claim a six-year limitations period.

Liberatore v. Greuner · filed 2016-12-23

Under CPLR 213, a claim for fraud has a statute of limitations period of six years. Defendant’s choice for the accrual date of the fraud claim is June 30, 2011. Thus, the fraud claim is clearly timely.

CPLR 213(8) gives a fraud claim the greater of six years from accrual or two years from when the fraud was discovered or could have been discovered with reasonable diligence.

Pugni v. Giannini · filed 2018-07-25(8)

The third cause of action, sounding in fraudulent inducement, was governed by the greater of two statutes of limitations, i.e., six years from the date the cause of action accrued, or two years from the time the plaintiff discovered the fraud or could have discovered the fraud using reasonable diligence ( see CPLR 213[8]). The defendants established, prima facie, that the time within which to commence the action has expired, and the plaintiff failed to raise a question of fact as to whether the statute of limitations was tolled.

A fraud-based action must be commenced within six years of the fraud or within two years after the plaintiff discovered or reasonably could have discovered it.

Odierna v. RSK, LLC · filed 2019-04-03(8)

"[A] fraud-based action must be commenced within six years of the fraud or within two years from the time the plaintiff[s] discovered the fraud or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it'" ( Sargiss v Magarelli , 12 NY3d 527, 532, quoting CPLR 213[8]; see Williams-Guillaume v Bank of Am., N.A. , 130 AD3d 1016, 1017).

Section 213(8) gives a fraud claim the greater of six years from accrual or two years from when the plaintiff discovered, or reasonably could have discovered, the fraud.

Kotlyarsky v. Abrazi · filed 2020-11-12(8)

Actions based on fraud are subject to the statute of limitations of "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 O'Reilly v Klar , 167 AD3d 920; Carbon Capital Mgt., LLC v American Express Co. , 88 AD3d 933, 939).

CPLR 213(8)'s six-year period does not apply when a fraud allegation is only incidental to the substance of the claim.

Dreamco Dev. Corp. v. Empire State Dev. Corp. · filed 2021-02-11(8)

We also agree with defendants that the first cause of action is time-barred. Although fraud claims are generally governed by a six-year statute of limitations ( see CPLR 213 [8]), "courts will not apply the fraud [s]tatute of [l]imitations if the fraud allegation is only incidental to the claim asserted; otherwise, fraud would be used as a means to litigate stale claims" ( Powers Mercantile Corp. v Feinberg , 109 AD2d 117, 120 [1st Dept 1985], affd 67 NY2d 981 [1986]; see Kaufman v Cohen , 307 AD2d 113, 119 [1st Dept 2003]).

For fraud claims, section 213(8) sets a limitations period of the longer of six years from accrual or two years from when the fraud was discovered or reasonably could have been discovered.

Zappin v. Schorr · filed 2023-03-22(8)

Under New York law, “[a]n action alleging 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]).” ... Accordingly, Zappin’s fraud claim is also untimely given that the six-year limitations period expired in 2021, and the case was filed in March 2022.

Section 213(8) requires fraud actions to be commenced within six years of the fraud or within two years after discovery or when the fraud reasonably could have been discovered.

Honeywell International Inc. v. Buckeye Partners, L.P. · filed 2023-03-27(8)

In New York, an action for fraud must be commenced within six years of the fraud, or within two years from the time that plaintiff discovered the fraud or reasonably could have discovered it.

For fraud, section 213(8) allows the longer of six years after accrual or two years after discovery, or when the fraud could reasonably have been discovered.

Cammarato v. 16 Admiral Perry Plaza, LLC · filed 2023-05-17(8)

The statute of limitations for an action based on fraud is "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]).

Section 213(8) sets a fraud claim’s limitations period at the greater of six years after accrual or two years after discovery, or when discovery reasonably should have occurred.

Deborah J. Piazza, as Chapter 7 Trustee of Row NYC v. CityRow Holdings, LLC · filed 2023-09-14(8)

A claim for actual fraud pursuant to NYDCL § 276 is governed by the limitations period set forth in CPLR 213(8).

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

Bai v. Tegs Management, LLC · filed 2023-10-04(8)

“Under New York law, “an action based upon 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.” N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 213(8).”

The six-year fraud limitations period does not apply to causes of action seeking a declaration that a forged deed is void.

Simmons v. Bell · filed 2023-10-04[8]

Thus, the six-year statute of limitations for fraud ( see CPLR 213[8]) does not apply to the causes of action which seek a declaration that the deed allegedly executed in 1998 is a nullity on the ground that is it forged.

For fraud actions, the limitations period is the greater of six years from accrual or two years from discovery, or when the fraud could reasonably have been discovered.

Mendez v. Pretium Mortgage Credit Partners · filed 2023-11-30(8)

“Pursuant to CPLR 213 (8), ‘the time within which [a fraud] action must be commenced shall be the greater of six years from the date the cause of action accrued or two years from the time the plaintiff or the person under whom the plaintiff claims discovered the fraud, or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it.’”

For fraud claims, the limitations period is the greater of six years from accrual or two years from discovery, or when the fraud could reasonably have been discovered.

1125 Morris Ave. Realty LLC v. Title Issues Agency LLC · filed 2023-12-12(8)

To be sure, the statute of limitations for a cause of action for fraud is governed by CPLR § 213(8) and it is six years from accrual, two years after discovery of the fraud, or 2 years from when in the exercise of reasonable diligence, such fraud could have been discovered [ id . "an action based upon fraud; the time within which the action must be commenced shall be the greater of six years from the date the cause of action accrued or two years from the time the plaintiff or the person under whom the plaintiff claims discovered the fraud, or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it."]).

Section 213(8) supplies the statute of limitations for claims premised on fraud.

Pare v. Pare · filed 2023-12-13(8)

As the plaintiff's notarial misconduct cause of action is premised on fraud, it is governed by the statute of limitations for fraud and thus, is also time-barred ( see Commonwealth Land Tit. Ins. Co. v ANM Funding LLC , 2016 WL 8672950, *5, 2016 US Dist LEXIS 136687, *13 [ED NY, No. 15CV3405 (KAM/RER)]; see also CPLR 213[8]; Gaidon v Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am. , 96 NY2d [*2]201, 208).

Section 213(8) gives fraud actions the longer of six years from accrual or two years from discovery, or when discovery could reasonably have occurred.

Poulard v. Delphin · filed 2024-01-19(8)

Because Poulard makes no argument that the causes of action were by being brought within six years of accrual, the argument is deemed conceded, and the Court need not consider it. ... �us, Poulard’s claims will only be timely if brought within two years of when he discovered the fraud or “could with reasonable diligence have discovered it.” See C.P.L.R. § 213(8). Put differently, since the complaint was filed on January 31, 2023 (Doc. 1), the claims will be untimely if the alleged fraud was discoverable with reasonable diligence before January 31, 2021.

Section 213(8) requires fraud based actions to be commenced within six years of the fraud or within two years after discovery or when it could reasonably have been discovered.

Sarkar v. City of New York · filed 2024-03-28(8)

Under New York Law, “a fraud-based action must be commenced within six years of the fraud or within two years from the time the plaintiff discovered the fraud or ‘could with reasonable diligence have discovered it.’” Sargiss v. Magarelli, 12 N.Y.3d 527, 532, 909 N.E.2d 573, 576 (2009) (quoting N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 213(8)).

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

Baldeo v. Airbnb, Inc. · filed 2024-03-30(8)

With respect to Plaintiffs’ fraud claim, the statute of limitations is “six years from the date the cause of action accrued,” or “two years” from when the fraud is discovered, whichever time is “greater.” N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 213(8).

Section 213(4) gives foreclosure actions a six-year limitations period, with the period running on the entire debt once the mortgage is accelerated.

U.S. Bank N.A. v. Bishu · filed 2024-04-05(4)

The Statute of Limitations in a foreclosure action is six (6) years. CPLR §213(4) . The Statute of Limitations in a foreclosure action begins running on the first date of default in payment of the mortgage and separate causes of action accrue for each installment that is not paid.

Fraud claims must be brought within six years of accrual or two years of when the plaintiff discovered or reasonably could have discovered the fraud, whichever is longer.

Martin v. Tracey Mgr., LLC · filed 2025-10-22(8)

"Actions based on fraud . . . are subject to the statute of limitations of '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'" ( O'Reilly v Klar , 167 AD3d 920, 921, quoting CPLR 213[8]). Here, the defendants and the partnership established, prima facie, that the third cause of action, alleging fraudulent inducement and aiding and abetting fraud, accrued, at the latest, in August 2012 when the refinancing at issue in that cause of action closed, at which time the plaintiffs possessed knowledge of facts from which they could have discovered the alleged fraud ( see Coleman v Wells Fargo & Co. , 125 AD3d 716, 716-717). Thus, the statute of limitations for the third cause of action expired prior to the commencement of this action in August 2021.

Section 213(8) generally gives an action based on fraud six years from accrual to be commenced.

Hersko v. Hersko · filed 2026-01-14(8)

The statute of limitations for an action based upon fraud generally is six years from the date the cause of action accrued ( see CPLR 213[8]).

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

Shen v. Ferncliff Cemetery Assn. · filed 2026-06-24(8)

A cause of action based on fraud must be commenced within six years from the date the cause of action accrued or within two years from the time the plaintiff discovered the fraud or could have with reasonable diligence discovered it ( see CPLR 213[8]; Lipszyc v Lipszyc , 221 AD3d 992, 994).

Section 213(8) sets the statute of limitations for fraud claims.

Monaco v. Van Meerendonk · filed 2021-01-27(8)

The plaintiff's fraud causes of action are not adequately pleaded ( see CPLR 3016[b]; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Sinclair , 68 AD3d 914, 916) and, in any event, are barred by the applicable statute of limitations ( see CPLR 213[8]; 203[g]; Marasa v Andrews , 69 AD3d 584, 584), precluded by the doctrine of res judicata ( see Matter of Singer v Windfield , 125 AD3d 666, 667), and barred by the prior settlement and release ( see Corvino v CBS, Inc. , 92 AD2d 536, 537).

Section 213(2) gives claims arising from contractual obligations a six-year limitations period even when liability is described as negligence.

Schulman Investment Co. v. Olin Corp. · filed 1979-09-26(2)

Noting that the selection of the proper statute of limitations is directly related to the remedy sought, rather than to the theory of liability, the court stated that “claims by owners against architects arising out of the performance or nonperformance of obligations under contracts between them are governed by the six-year Statute of Limitations (CPLR 213, subd. 2), except with respect to the issue of damages as described below.” ... The Sears decision governs the case now before the Court. ... Under the rule announced in Sears, Schulman’s negligence claim should not be dismissed on a motion for summary judgment.

Subdivision (4) gives a six-year period for an action on a mortgage.

City of Buffalo v. Watkins · filed 1979-10-15(4)

Assuming that this suit is an action to recover an assessment, the time in which to institute such an action is expired since it must be brought within the time one might commence an action on a mortgage (see 55 NY Jur, Special Assessments, § 359) and the time allowed for that action is six years (CPLR 213, subd 4).

Section 213 supplies a six-year limitations period for an action, measured from accrual of the cause of action.

In re the Estate of Hoffman · filed 1980-12-31

Consequently, any cause of action by the trust to enforce its equitable assignment would not accrue until the trust terminated. As the trust did not terminate until 1977 and the proceeding to settle the account and enforce the assignment was commended in 1979, a cause of action on the assignment is not barred by the six-year Statute of Limitations applicable to this proceeding (CPLR 213).

Subdivision 1 provides the six-year limitations period that governs a declaratory judgment action when no other statutory limitation period applies.

Metz v. Incorporated Village · filed 1981-09-22(1)

In order to determine whether a particular declaratory judgment action should be governed by the six-year Statute of Limitations of CPLR 213 (subd 1) or by some other limitation period, it is necessary to identify the relationship out of which the claim arises and the relief sought. ... Accordingly, the period of limitations for this declaratory judgment action is governed by CPLR 213 (subd 1) and the action was timely commenced.

Section 213 requires actions covered by its six-year limitations period to be commenced within six years.

Gurnee v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co. · filed 1982-02-18

With respect to this burden, it should be noted that the applicable six-year Statute of Limitations has already extinguished a portion of the insurers’ potential liability (see CPLR 213).

Section 213(1) provides a six-year limitations period for an action with no other prescribed period.

Dingeo v. Santiago · filed 1982-04-19(1)

The plaintiff alleges that the defendant first repudiated her promise to retransfer the subject real property in 1978. That being so, the defendant’s retention of title to the premises did not become adverse until that time. Consequently, the plaintiff has instituted his suit to impress a constructive trust within the time required by the Statute of Limitations (CPLR 213, subd 1) and it was error to dismiss the claim as time barred.

Section 213 provides a six-year limitations period for covered actions.

Iacono v. Ltd. · filed 1982-09-30

Plaintiff commenced the action within the Statute of Limitations with respect to the claim based on breach of warranty of seaworthiness. Therefore, the negligence theory of liability should also go forward (CPLR 213; see Le Gate v The Panamolga, 221 F2d 689) and the second branch of defendant’s motion seeking to dismiss the complaint as time barred should also have been denied.

Section 213 requires actions covered by it to be commenced within six years.

State of New York Higher Education Services Corp. v. Zamore · filed 1982-10-28

The Statute of Limitations applicable to this matter is six years (CPLR 213), and plaintiff is clearly not suing on the note itself, but rather upon its payment of the note pursuant to its guarantee. Consequently, its cause of action accrued on January 29,1974, the date of payment, and since defendant was not served until more than six years later on April 29, 1981, the cause of action is time barred.

Subdivision 2 provides a six-year Statute of Limitations for contract actions.

Englishtown Sportswear, Ltd. v. Marine Midland Bank · filed 1983-10-24(2)

Pursuant to CPLR 213 (subd 2) there is a six-year Statute of Limitations for this contract action.

Section 213(1) requires an action seeking a declaratory judgment that a stock issuance was null and void to be commenced within six years from the date the stock was issued.

Dean v. Van Scoter · filed 1983-12-16(1)

Such an action must be commenced within six years from the date the stock was issued (CPLR 213, subd 1; see Solnick v Whalen, 49 NY2d 224, 229-230).

Section 213(2) provides a six-year period for commencing an action after accrual.

MacFarland-Breakell Building Corp. v. New York State Thruway Authority · filed 1984-02-10(2)

Hence, claimant’s late claim motion, brought within six years of accrual (see CPLR 213, subd 2) could be properly considered by the court.

Section 213(2) provides a six-year limitations period for an action based on breach of a written agreement.

Antel Oldsmobile-Cadillac, Inc. v. Sirus Leasing Co. · filed 1984-04-12(2)

Because the first cause of action is based on the alleged breach of a written agreement, the applicable limitations period is six years (CPLR 213, subd 2), and the action is not barred since it was commenced within that period.

Section 213(2) sets a six-year limitations period for the actions it covers.

Massachusetts Higher Education Assistance Corp. v. Bruno · filed 1984-08-09(2)

Ms. Bruno in her answer contends that the cause of action herein is time barred by the Statute of Limitations of six years. ... Therefore, the action commenced by the plaintiff guarantor on December 7,1983 against defendant was certainly not in violation of the Statute of Limitations as it was filed within six years of the cause of action. ... Both New York and Massachusetts law have a similar Statute of Limitations of six years in matters such as the one before this court. (CPLR 213, subd 2; Mass Gen Laws Ann, ch 260, § 2.)

Subdivision (1) provides a six-year limitations period for an action seeking declaratory relief challenging an ordinance.

Unanue v. Town of Gardiner · filed 1984-11-29(1)

In this context, a declaratory judgment action is clearly proper and defendant’s objection to the timeliness of the action is without substance (CPLR 213, subd 1; see Press v County of Monroe, 50 NY2d 695).

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

Witherbee v. Republic Steel Corp. · filed 1984-12-06(2)

Therefore, since plaintiff’s cause of action is for breach of contract, the six-year Statute of Limitations applies. The claim in this case is time barred and, accordingly, the complaint was properly dismissed (CPLR 213, subd 2; see Abrams v Carrier Corp., 434 F2d 1234, 1252-1253, cert den 401 US 1009).

Claims arising more than six years before the action began are barred.

Neiman v. Neiman · filed 1985-02-28

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (David H. Edwards, Jr., J.), entered April 27, 1984, denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment and granting plaintiff’s cross motion to the extent of compelling defendant to produce all documents demanded in plaintiff’s notices to produce, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to include, as a final decretal paragraph, a proviso that all claims asserted by plaintiff in her complaint as well as all claims asserted by defendant in his counterclaim which arose prior to six years before the commencement of the action are barred under CPLR 213, and is otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Section 213(1) provides the applicable limitations period for comparable actions brought under ECL 15-0701(1).

Hoffman v. Appleman · filed 1986-05-05(1)

Initially, we find that the plaintiffs’ action was not barred by the Statute of Limitations, since actions such as the one at bar, brought pursuant to ECL 15-0701 (1) are governed by those provisions of the CPLR applicable to comparable actions (see, CPLR 213 [1]; 214 [4]; Kearney v Atlantic Cement Co., 33 AD2d 848).

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

Antoniu v. Ahern · filed 1987-11-05

Preliminarily, we note that the allegations in this cause of action sufficiently set forth a claim for fraud as to which the applicable period of limitations is six years (CPLR 213).

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

Benson v. Boston Old Colony Insurance · filed 1987-11-24(2)

This is a breach of contract action for the carrier’s failure to pay the full amount due and owing under section 671 of the Insurance Law. The applicable Statute of Limitations is, therefore, six years (CPLR 213 [2]).

Section 213(2) requires a contract action to be commenced within six years, subject to applicable tolling rules.

Cerulean Land Developers Corp. v. Colon Development Corp. · filed 1988-11-28(2)

Furthermore, a question of fact exists as to whether or not the plaintiffs action is barred by the six-year Statute of Limitations (CPLR 213 [2]).

Section 213(2) applies a six-year limitations period when the plaintiff's claim arises from contractual obligations.

Town of Hempstead v. Lizza Industries, Inc. · filed 1988-12-29(2)

Since the plaintiff allegedly is a third-party beneficiary of the defendant’s contract with the county, and since the complaint alleges that the defendant failed to perform its contractual obligations properly and that the breach caused the plaintiff’s harm, the plaintiff’s rights, if any, could arise from the agreement and the six-year Statute of Limitations would' apply (CPLR 213 [2]; Sears, Roebuck & Co. v Enco Assocs., 43 NY2d 389; Baratia v Kozlowski, 94 AD2d 454).

Section 213 applies a six-year limitations period to this action challenging a real-property conveyance for fraud.

Baecher v. Ross · filed 1989-03-13[1], [8]

Accordingly, the plaintiffs commencement of the present action on June 23, 1986, challenging the conveyance on the ground, inter alia, of fraud, was not within the six-year limitations period applicable to this case (see, CPLR 213 [1], [8]).

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

Minto v. County of Suffolk · filed 1989-03-13(2)

The six-year limitations period of CPLR 213 (2) is applicable to actions sounding in breach of contract.

Section 213 requires a contract action against a party other than the State of New York to be brought within six years of accrual.

Fowler Electric Co. v. State · filed 1989-06-20

A contract action against a party other than the State of New York must be brought within six years of accrual (CPLR 213).

Section 213 imposes a six-year limitations period on contract, constructive-trust, fraud, accounting, fiduciary-duty, and restitution claims.

Whalen v. Gerzof · filed 1989-10-26[1], [2], [8]

Causes of action based upon breach of contract are limited by a six-year statute (CPLR 213 [2]; Grant v DCA Foods Indus., 124 AD2d 909, lv denied 69 NY2d 612), as are equitable causes of action to impress a constructive trust (CPLR 213 [1]; Mattera v Mattera, 125 AD2d 555; Boronow v Boronow, 111 AD2d 735) and actions based on fraud (CPLR 213 [8]; Fava v Kaufman, 124 AD2d 42). The remaining causes of action (other than contract or fraud), i.e., accounting, breach of fiduciary relationship and restitution, are limited to the six-year statute (CPLR 213 [1]; see, Fava v Kaufman, supra).

Section 213 requires an action on a promissory note to be commenced within six years.

Park Associates v. Crescent Park Associates, Inc. · filed 1990-03-02

The plaintiff’s cause of action to recover on a promissory note accrued on October 30, 1978, when the note came due. Thus, this action, commenced by service of a summons and complaint dated March 12, 1985, was not brought within the applicable six-year Statute of Limitations (CPLR 213).

Section 213 requires contractual claims to be brought within six years.

In re Paris · filed 1990-04-19

We therefore find that petitioner’s claim was barred by the six-year contractual Statute of Limitations set forth in CPLR 213 and by the equitable doctrine of laches.

Section 213 applies a six-year limitations period to the fiduciary-duty action described by the court.

Butler v. Gibbons · filed 1991-05-23

Although plaintiff contends that the gravamen of his complaint is a breach of defendant’s alleged fiduciary duty created by the joint venture agreement rather than a shareholder’s action, the statute of limitations applicable to such an action is also six years. (CPLR 213.)

Section 213(2) requires an action on a guaranty to be commenced within six years of the debtor’s default.

Marine Midland Bank, N.A. v. Walter Perlstein, Inc. · filed 1991-07-25(2)

Burritt wrongly suggests that plaintiff’s claims to recover the debts evidenced by the 1982 and 1983 notes are barred by the applicable six-year Statute of Limitations (see, CPLR 213 [2]). Plaintiff’s action on Burritt’s guaranty would be untimely only if it had not been instituted within six years of WPI’s default (General Phoenix Corp. v Cabot, 300 NY 87, 92; Gazza v United California Bank Intl., 88 AD2d 968, 969; compare, Bank of N. Y. v Bersani, 90 AD2d 302, 307 [cause of action against guarantor-indorser accrues on date of note giving rise to obligation]). WPI defaulted in 1988 and plaintiff commenced this action immediately thereafter; hence, timeliness is not a bar to these causes of action.

Section 213(6) requires covered actions to be commenced within six years, with the period running from the occurrence of the actionable mistake.

Lauer's Furniture Stores, Inc. v. Pittsford Place Associates · filed 1991-11-15(6)

Supreme Court erred by failing to grant summary judgment to Pittsford Place Associates and John Summers dismissing the first cause of action asserted in the amended complaint in the Supreme Court action because it is barred by the applicable six-year Statute of Limitations (see, CPLR 213 [6]). The six-year Statute of Limitations period commenced to "run upon the occurrence of the actionable mistake” (Matter of Allen [First Wallstreet Settlement Corp.], 130 AD2d 824, 826).

Subdivision (2) gives six years for an action seeking property or pecuniary damages recoverable in contract when based on failure to exercise due care in performing a contract.

Santulli v. Englert, Reilly & McHugh, P. C. · filed 1992-01-16(2)

Thus, an "action for failure to exercise due care in the performance of a contract insofar as it seeks recovery for damages to property or pecuniary interests recoverable in a contract action is governed by the six-year contract Statute of Limitations (CPLR 213, subd 2)” (Video Corp. v Flatto Assocs., 58 NY2d 1026, 1028, supra; see also, Sager v DeRiggi, 161 AD2d 571; Sinopoli v Cocozza, 105 AD2d 743; Baratta v Kozlowski, 94 AD2d 454; see generally, Farrell, 1983 Survey of New York Law, 35 Syracuse L Rev 59, 60-63; Siegel, NY Prac, § 37, at 45 [2d ed]).

Section 213(2) gives claims against a surety on a guarantee a six-year limitations period that accrues when the debtor defaults.

Phoenix Acquisition Corp. v. Campcore, Inc. · filed 1992-04-24(2)

A cause of action against a surety to recover on a guarantee is governed by a six-year Statute of Limitations (CPLR 213 [2]; American Trading Co. v Fish, 42 NY2d 20, 26-27) and accrues "as soon as” the debtor defaults in payment of the underlying obligation (General Phoenix Corp. v Cabot, 300 NY 87, 93; see also, Gazza v United Cal. Bank Inti., 88 AD2d 968, 969; Chemical Bank N. Y. Trust Co. v Amory, 27 AD2d 730, affd 21 NY2d 832).

Section 213 requires applicable actions to be commenced within six years, including a motion to reform based on a mistake made more than six years earlier.

Kuritsky v. De Sienna · filed 1993-01-11

The plaintiffs’ motion to reform the agreement which settled the action was untimely, since it was made more than six years after the alleged mistake was made (see, CPLR 213).

Section 213 bars fraud and contract claims under its applicable statute of limitations periods.

Abraham v. New York University College of Dentistry · filed 1993-02-09

Aside from lack of merit, we agree with the IAS Court that both the fraud claim (CPLR 213 [8]; 203 [f]; see, K&E Trading & Shipping v Radmar Trading Corp., 174 AD2d 346, 347), and the contract claim (CPLR 213 [2]) are barred by the Statute of Limitations.

For proceedings for accountings, the section provides a six-year limitations period.

In re the Estate of Behr · filed 1993-03-01(1)

In proceedings for accountings, the governing limitations period is the six-year period set forth in CPLR 213 (1).

Section 213 gives a six-year limitations period for a demand for arbitration, running from accrual of the cause of action.

Westchester Fire Insurance v. Imperiale · filed 1993-04-22

A demand for arbitration is subject to the six-year Statute of Limitations (CPLR 213). However, "[t]he time within which an action must be commenced * * * shall be computed from the time the cause of action accrued to the time the claim is interposed” (CPLR 203 [a]). The statute begins to run "when all of the facts necessary to the cause of action have occurred so that the party would be entitled to obtain relief in court” (Aetna Life & Cas. Co. v Nelson, 67 NY2d 169, 175 [1986]; see also, Blakeley v Agency of Can. Car & Foundry Co., 73 NYS2d 573, affd 272 App Div 1001 [where cause of action depends on a contingent event, the Statute of Limitations begins to run from the date the event happens]). ... Here, on August 26, 1992 the primary insurance was exhausted by payment of the settlement. Prior to settlement respondent could not have commenced arbitration against his insurer because all the elements necessary to trigger the exhaustion provision and arbitration did not result until 1992. Thus, although the accident occurred in 1983 the cause of action did not accrue until the settlement.

Section 213 supplies a six-year limitations period for declaratory relief claims.

Maher v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal · filed 1993-08-18

In addition, to the extent petitioner’s challenge to the validity of the Policy Statement is considered an action for declaratory relief, the applicable limitations period is six years (CPLR 213).