N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214

Section 214(6) imposes a three-year limitations period on legal malpractice actions.

ELSTEIN, M.D., DANIEL v. PHILLIPS LYTLE, LLP · filed 2013-07-05(6)

This action was not commenced until approximately eight years later, on March 4, 2011, and is thus time-barred under the applicable three-year statute of limitations (see CPLR 214 [6]).

Section 214(5) requires an action to recover damages for personal injuries to be commenced within three years of the injury.

Gardner v. City University of New York · filed 2013-07-16(5)

CPLR 214 (5) requires that an action to recover damages for personal injuries be commenced within three years of the date of the injury, or in this case, no later than December 12, 2012.

Section 214 sets a three-year limitations period for the negligence claim.

5 AWNINGS PLUS, INC. v. MOSES INSURANCE GROUP, INC. · filed 2013-07-19

Thus, plaintiff’s negligence cause of action is barred by the three-year statute of limitations set forth in CPLR 214, and the court erred in denying that part of the motion to dismiss that cause of action (see generally Cappelli v Berkshire Life Ins. Co., 276 AD2d 458, 459).

Section 214(6) requires legal malpractice claims to be filed within three years, subject to tolling during an attorney’s continuous representation.

Red Zone LLC v. Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP · filed 2013-08-27(6)

Legal malpractice claims generally must be filed within three years of the alleged malpractice. (CPLR 214 [6].) However, the statute of limitations is tolled through the duration of an attorney’s “continuous representation” of her client. (See Glamm v Allen, 57 NY2d 87, 93 [1982].) Unless the statute of limitations was tolled through the doctrine of continuous representation the claim must be dismissed as untimely.

Section 214(2) provides a three-year limitations period for NYSHRL claims, tolled while an EEOC charge is pending.

Russo v. New York Presbyterian Hospital · filed 2013-09-23(2)

Excluded from the three year statute of limitations are the 378 days, from September 16, 2008 to September 29, 2009, during which Plaintiffs EEOC charge was pending. Plaintiff may therefore assert any claim which accrued on or after November 24, 2005. NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims against Presbyterian Hospital and Queens Medical Center that accrued before November 24, 2005, are time-barred.

Section 214(3) requires a conversion action to be commenced within three years after the claim accrues.

Cusack v. Greenberg Traurig, LLP · filed 2013-09-26(3)

Plaintiffs conversion claim was triggered on July 9, 2008, when according to the complaint, defendant first refused to correct the defective opinion letter (see Vigilant Ins. Co. of Am. v Housing Auth. of City of El Paso, Tex., 87 NY2d 36, 44 [1995]). Plaintiff commenced this action on July 15, 2011, more than three years after the statute of limitations began to run (CPLR 214 [3]). Accordingly, the court properly dismissed that claim as time-barred.

Section 214(2) imposes a three-year limitations period on NYSHRL claims.

Holcombe v. US Airways Group, Inc. · filed 2013-09-30(2)

Plaintiffs NYSHRL claims are subject to a three-year statute of limitations. See Kassner v. 2nd, Avenue Delicatessen Inc., 496 F.3d 229, 238 (2d Cir.2007) (applying three-year statute of limitations to claims under the NYSHRL); N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214(2). As indicated, the only improper conduct Plaintiff attributes to Holdren occurred in 2002. Similarly, most of the conduct Plaintiff attributes to Bove occurred in 2002, although she does imply that Bove improperly interfered with her ability to return to work until 2006. Plaintiff, however, did not assert any claims against Bove or Holdren until she filed her amended complaint on December 22, 2010. Thus, any claim based on conduct that occurred before December 22, 2007 is time-barred.

Section 214(3) requires actions to be commenced within three years.

Commandment Keepers Ethiopian Hebrew Congregation of the Living God, Pillar & Ground of Truth, Inc. v. 31 Mount Morris P · filed 2013-06-04(3)

Plaintiffs claims are not time-barred, as the record indicates that the alleged taking occurred in 2007, the year this action was commenced (see CPLR 214 [3]).

Section 214(3) imposes a three year limitation period on conversion claims, and section 214(4) does the same for negligence claims.

Christine Falls Corp. v. U.S. Bank National Ass'n · filed 2013-09-19(3), (4)

A three year statute of limitations applies to Trafalgar’s conversion and negligence claims, and a six year limit applies to its claim for constructive fraud. N.Y. C.P.L.R. §§ 214(3) (conversion), 214(4) (negligence), 213(8) (fraud).

Section 214(5) gives negligence claims a three-year statute of limitations.

Faiella v. Tysens Park Apartments · filed 2013-10-30(5)

As such, the complaint was not time-barred, as it was governed by the three-year statute of limitations applicable to negligence (see CPLR 214 [5]; Schrank v Lederman, 52 AD3d 494, 496 [2008]), not the one-year statute of limitations applicable to assault and battery (see CPLR 215 [3]).

Section 214(4) imposes a three-year statute of limitations on tortious interference claims.

Schoolcraft v. City of New York · filed 2013-11-21(4)

The statute of limitations for Mauriel-lo’s tortious interference counterclaim is three years. CPLR § 214(4); see also, IDT Corp. v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., 12 N.Y.3d 132, 141, 879 N.Y.S.2d 355, 907 N.E.2d 268 (N.Y.2009).

Section 214(6) imposes a three-year limitations period on actions for nonmedical professional malpractice.

Regency Club at Wallkill, LLC v. Appel Design Group, P.A. · filed 2013-12-04(6)

“[A]n action to recover damages for malpractice, other than medical, dental or podiatric malpractice, regardless of whether the underlying theory is based in contract or tort” is subject to a three-year statute of limitations (CPLR 214 [6]; see Matter of R.M. Kliment & Frances Halsband, Architects [McKinsey & Co., Inc.], 3 NY3d 538, 541 [2004]).

Section 214 provides a three-year statute of limitations for section 1983 actions filed in New York.

Hogan v. Fischer · filed 2013-12-20

Section 1983 actions filed in New York are therefore subject to a three-year statute of limitations. Pearl, 296 F.3d at 79; see N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214 (McKinney 2013).

Section 214(5) requires negligence actions for personal injuries to be commenced within three years.

Marrero v. Nails · filed 2013-12-26(5)

As a general matter, an action to recover damages for personal injuries based on negligence is subject to a three-year statute of limitations (see CPLR 214 [5]; Santana v St. Vincent Catholic Med. Ctr. of N.Y., 65 AD3d 1119, 1119 [2009]). The plaintiff Digna Marrero allegedly slipped and fell, and consequently sustained injuries, on February 7, 2003. Accordingly, under ordinary circumstances, the time within which to commence an action to recover damages for negligence based on this incident would have expired on February 7, 2006.

CPLR 214(2) provides a three-year limitations period for claims based on statutory liability.

Lucker v. Bayside Cemetery · filed 2013-12-31(2)

Even assuming that the factual allegations were sufficient to allege violations of General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, the claims would be time-barred under the three-year statute of limitations (see CPLR 214 [2]; Corsello v Verizon N.Y., Inc., 18 NY3d 777, 789 [2012]). The accrual date for such a claim is the date of the injury (see Corsello, 18 NY3d at 790).

Section 214 requires Judiciary Law § 487 and legal malpractice claims to be brought within three years.

Mizuno v. Barak · filed 2014-01-29(2), (6)

That conduct was committed approximately 8V2 years prior to the subject action, so as to bar the plaintiffs claims alleging violation of Judiciary Law § 487 (see CPLR 214 [2]; Lefkowitz v Appelbaum, 258 AD2d 563 [1999]), fraud (see CPLR 213 [8]; Lefkowitz v Appelbaum, 258 AD2d 563 [1999]), and legal malpractice (see CPLR 214 [6]; Squitieri v Trapani, 107 AD3d 688 [2013]).

Section 214(3) imposes a three-year statute of limitations on conversion claims.

In re HSBC Bank, USA, N.A., Debit Card Overdraft Fee Litigation · filed 2014-03-05(3)

“New York applies a three-year statute of limitations for conversion.” St. John’s Univ., New York v. Bolton, 757 F.Supp.2d 144, 179 (E.D.N.Y.2010), citing N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214(3). HSBC asserts that any claim for conversion on behalf of Jura is untimely under C.P.L.R § 214(3) as the alleged overdraft fees occurred on August 6-7, 2008, more than three years prior to the filing of the amended consolidated class action complaint. The Plaintiffs counter that these dates are just examples of overdraft occurrences and that some overdrafts occurred after these dates. Alternatively, the Plaintiffs argue that the New York conversion claim was tolled under C.P.L.R. 205(a) by the state court action before Justice Bransten. On these assertions, the Court agrees with HSBC.

Section 214 requires a General Business Law § 349 claim to be brought within three years of accrual.

Brown v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. · filed 2014-04-03

Plaintiff’s cause of action for violation of General Business Law § 349 was properly held untimely, as it accrued upon defendants’ first notice of mortgage payment increases in April 2009, more than three years before the July 2012 service of the pleadings in this action (see CPLR 214).

Section 214(6) requires professional malpractice claims to be commenced within three years.

New York State Workers' Compensation Board v. SGRisk, LLC · filed 2014-04-03(6)

but where a plaintiff seeks “to recover damages for malpractice, other than medical, dental or podiatric malpractice,” the cause of action must be commenced within three years “regardless of whether the underlying theory is based in contract or tort” (CPLR 214 [6]; see Matter of R.M. Kliment & Frances Halsband, Architects [McKinsey & Co., Inc.], 3 NY3d 538, 541 [2004]; City of Binghamton v Hawk Eng’g P.C., 85 AD3d 1417, 1418 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 713 [2011]).

Section 214(3) requires conversion actions to be commenced within three years.

Mariano v. Fiorvante · filed 2014-06-25(3)

The cause of action sounding in conversion was barred by the applicable statute of limitations since this action was commenced more than three years after the alleged “theft” occurred {see CPLR 214 [3]).

Section 214(2) and (5) impose limitations periods that bar claims commenced after those periods expire.

Lake v. New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens · filed 2014-07-23(2), (5)

Since this action was commenced after the expiration of the statute of limitations, the Supreme Court properly granted those branches of the defendants’ separate motions which were pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them (see CPLR 214 [2], [5]; 214-a).

Section 214(2) requires claims asserting violations of New York statutes, including Public Health Law § 18 and General Business Law § 349(a), to be filed within three years of accrual.

Spiro ex rel. Estate of Torres v. Healthport Technologies, LLC · filed 2014-08-29(2)

Each of the three damages claims is subject to a three-year statute of limitations.

Section 214(2) imposes a three-year limitations period on claims for liabilities created by statute, including claims under Executive Law § 63(12) and Social Services Law § 145-b based on the conduct alleged here.

United States ex rel. Bilotta v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. · filed 2014-09-30(2)

Accordingly, the three-year statute of limitations under C.P.L.R. § 214(2) applies to New York’s Executive Law § 63(12) and Social Services Law § 145-b claims.

Section 214(2) provides a three-year limitations period for an action to enforce the administrative determination.

MatterofNeronivGranis · filed 2014-10-23(2)

Finally, and contrary to the Neronis' contention that the action was time- barred, it was commenced less than two years after the Commissioner's determination was issued on June 10, 2009, well within the applicable limitations period of three years (see CPLR 214 [2]; Hartnett v New York City Tr. Auth., 86 NY2d 438, 443-444 [1995]).

Section 214 provides a three-year limitations period for the tortious interference and negligence claims addressed by the court.

HevRealtyUSA · filed 2014-10-23(4), (5)

With respect to the balance of plaintiff's claims against defendants, a review of the complaint reveals that the causes of action set forth therein sound in either intentional tort, tortious interference with business relations or negligence and, therefore, are governed by either a one- or three-year statute of limitations (see CPLR 214 [4], [5]; 215). As plaintiff's claims against defendants accrued no later than the date upon which defendants acquired title to the former marital residence (October 17, 2007), her action against defendants – commenced in November 2012 – clearly is time-barred.

Section 214(2) provides a three-year limitations period for an action to enforce the Commissioner’s determination.

Neroni v. Granis · filed 2014-10-23(2)

Finally, and contrary to the Neronis’ contention that the action was time-barred, it was commenced less than two years after the Commissioner’s determination was issued on June 10, 2009, well within the applicable limitations period of three years (see CPLR 214 [2]; Hartnett v New York City Tr. Auth., 86 NY2d 438, 443-444 [1995]).

Section 214(5) provides a three-year limitations period for § 1983 claims brought in New York.

Lilly v. Town of Lewiston · filed 2014-11-07(5)

Neither party disputes that, here, the relevant statute of limitations for the § 1983 claim is N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214(5), which provides for a three-year limitations period.

Section 214(5) supplies a three-year limitations period for ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and § 1983 claims in these circumstances.

Stropkay v. Garden City Union Free School District · filed 2014-12-03(5)

Plaintiffs, however, brought suit under the ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and § 1983, all of which have three year statutes of limitations in these circumstances. N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214(5); ... The action was brought on January 28, 2013; therefore, any claims that accrued prior to January 28, 2010―including Katie Collins’ claim that defendants failed to provide a 1:1 aide―are untimely.

Section 214(2) supplies the three-year limitations period for Section 1983 claims brought in New York.

Ellis v. Wilkinson · filed 2015-01-28(2)

In New York, Section 214 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules sets forth a three year statute of limitations for actions “to recover upon a liability, penalty or forfeiture created or imposed by statute.” N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214(2). ... Here, it is clear from the face of the complaint that plaintiff’s claims relating to events predating the state court lawsuit are untimely.

Section 214(5) gives a common-law subrogation claim based on personal injury a three-year limitations period that runs from the date of the accident.

Daimler Chrysler Insurance v. New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance · filed 2015-02-19(5)

Plaintiffs claim is also time-barred, because plaintiff is seeking common-law subrogation relief, and the statute of limitations on the underlying personal injury cause of action (three years) commenced to run as of the date of the accident (see General Construction Law § 20; Vigilant Ins. Co. of Am. v Housing Auth. of City of El Paso, Tex., 87 NY2d 36, 43 [1995]; CPLR 214 [5]; cf. Matter of Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 89 NY2d 214, 221 [1996] [subrogation rights created by no-fault statute commenced on date benefits were paid]).

Section 214(4) allows three years from the accident to bring a negligence action for property damage.

Travelers Property Casualty Co. of America v. Sanco Mechanical, Inc. · filed 2015-03-17(4)

The action, involving a flood at an Ann Taylor retail store, is not time-barred, as it was commenced within three years of the date of the accident (see CPLR 214 [4]; Town of Oyster Bay v Lizza Indus., Inc., 22 NY3d 1024, 1031 [2013]).

Section 214 gives conversion claims three years from each act of conversion and gives breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims seeking only money damages three years.

Torrance Construction, Inc. v. Jaques · filed 2015-04-02(3), (4)

For conversion, a three-year statute of limitations applies and runs from the date that the conversion took place, not from discovery of the theft (see CPLR 214 [3]; Vigilant Ins. Co. of Am. v Housing Auth. of City of El Paso, Tex., 87 NY2d 36, 44 [1995]; Berman v Goldsmith, 141 AD2d 487, 487 [1988]). The statute of limitations runs separately from each separate act of conversion; a series of conversions against the same person or entity is not considered a single transaction for such purpose (see Stanley v Morgan Guar. Trust Co. of N.Y., 173 AD2d 390, 391 [1991]). ... The statute of limitations for breach of fiduciary duty differs depending on whether the substantive remedy sought is purely monetary – giving rise to the three-year period applicable to injuries to property (see CPLR 214 [4]) – or is equitable in nature – giving rise to a six-year period pursuant to CPLR 213 (1) (see IDT Corp. v Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., 12 NY3d 132, 139 [2009]).

Section 214 bars a negligence claim brought more than three years after it accrues.

BurksvStateofNewYork · filed 2014-07-31

Here, inasmuch as claimant moved for permission to file a late claim more than eight years after the claim accrued, his motion is time-barred whether he is asserting a cause of action for the intentional tort of false imprisonment (see CPLR 215 [3]) or asserting a negligence claim (see CPLR 214).

Section 214 sets a three-year limitations period for a negligence claim based on a faulty appraisal, running from when the plaintiff received and relied on the appraisal and became liable for the resulting loss.

NOTHNAGLE HOME SECURITIES CORP. v. BRUCKNER, TILLET, ROSSI, CAHILL · filed 2015-02-13(4), (6)

We note as a preliminary matter that we agree with defendants that the applicable limitations period for the negligence cause of action is three years (see CPLR 214 [4], [6]; ...), and we further agree with defendants that the negligence cause of action accrued on August 19, 2004, the day on which plaintiff received defendants’ appraisal containing the misclassification.

Section 214(4) and (6) provide a three-year limitations period for this negligence claim, which accrued when the plaintiff received the flawed appraisal.

Nothnagle Home Securities Corp. v. Bruckner · filed 2015-02-13(4), (6)

We note as a preliminary matter that we agree with defendants that the applicable limitations period for the negligence cause of action is three years (see CPLR 214 [4], [6]; see generally Calor v Bauman, 39 AD3d 1263, 1263 [2007]; Locafrance U.S. Corp. v Daley-Hodkin Corp., 60 AD2d 804, 805 [1978]), and we further agree with defendants that the negligence cause of action accrued on August 19, 2004, the day on which plaintiff received defendants’ appraisal containing the misclassification.

Section 214(2) sets a three-year limitations period for claims under New York General Business Law Section 349.

Jacobs v. Halper · filed 2015-07-22(2)

The limitations period for Plaintiffs UTPCPL claim is six years, see 42 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 5527; the limitations period for a violation of New York’s General Business Law Section 349 is three years, see N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214(2).

Section 214(5) supplies a three-year limitations period for § 1983 employment claims in New York; claims based on discrete acts within that period are timely.

Vega v. Hempstead Union Free School District · filed 2015-09-02(5)

Claims under § 1983 are governed by a three-year statute of limitations in New York. ... To the extent that Vega contends that he was assigned extra work on a discriminatory or retaliatory basis after December 14, 2009 with respect to his § 1983 claims and after October 12, 2010 with respect to his Title VII claims, the claims are not untimely.

Section 214(5) supplies a three-year limitations period for § 1983 claims brought in New York.

Horn Ex Rel. Estate of Horn v. City of Yonkers Police Officer Dean Politopoulos · filed 2015-10-14(5)

The applicable limitations period in New York is three years. N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214(5) (McKinney 2014).

Section 214(5) sets a three-year limitations period for personal injury actions, including Section 1983 claims brought in New York.

Burroughs v. Petrone · filed 2015-10-15(5)

In New York, a three-year statute of limitations applies for personal injury actions and thus to Section 1983 actions.

Section 214(4) and (5) set a three-year limitations period for the claims they cover.

He v. Siemens Energy, Inc. · filed 2015-12-17(4), (5)

This action was commenced in 2012 and, because most of the causes of action asserted in the complaint are subject to a statute of limitations of one year (see CPLR 215 [3]) or three years (see CPLR 214 [4], [5]), they are time-barred.

Section 214(5) supplies a three-year limitations period for Title II ADA claims.

Louis ex rel. G.A.H. v. New York City Housing Authority · filed 2016-01-14(5)

Applying that limitations period here, we acknowledge some difficulty in determining when plaintiffs’ Title II claims accrued. ... However, to the extent that plaintiffs’ Title II claims are based on NYCHA’s discrete acts of denying Louis’s requests prior to March 27, 2012, those claims accrued at the time of denial and must be dismissed.

Section 214(2) and (5) bar negligence, gross negligence, and Public Health Law § 2801-d claims based on care provided outside the applicable limitations period.

Vissichelli v. Glen-Haven Residential Health Care Facility, Inc. · filed 2016-02-24(2), (5)

Here, the defendants established, prima facie, that the causes of action alleging negligence, gross negligence, and violation of Public Health Law § 2801-d were time-barred, insofar as they relate to care provided to the decedent prior to August 22, 2006 (see CPLR 214 [2], [5]).

A party opposing an amendment on limitations grounds must explain why Section 214’s three-year period applies to the proposed claim.

Commonwealth Land Title Insurance v. Sienna Abstract, LLC · filed 2016-02-24

In addition, the defendants failed to explain why the proposed cause of action should be subject to a three-year statute of limitations (see CPLR 214) rather than a six-year statute of limitations (see CPLR 213).

CPLR 214 provides a three-year limitations period for claims under 42 USC § 1983.

Barry v. Cadman Towers, Inc. · filed 2016-02-24

Causes of action pursuant to the Act have a two-year statute of limitations (see 42 USC § 3613 [a] [1] [A]), and causes of action pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 have a three-year statute of limitations (see CPLR 214; Way v City of Beacon, 96 AD3d 829, 832 [2012]; Matter of Greenfield v Town of Babylon Dept. of Assessment, 76 AD3d 1071, 1073-1075 [2010]).

CPLR 214(5) supplies a three-year limitations period for claims under 42 USC § 1983.

Azor v. City of New York · filed 2016-03-01(5)

Plaintiff’s claim for alleged civil rights violations during disciplinary hearing proceedings, under 42 USC § 1983, is barred by the three-year statute of limitations (see CPLR 214 [5]; Owens v Okure, 488 US 235, 250 [1989]; 423 S. Salina St. v City of Syracuse, 68 NY2d 474, 486 [1986], cert denied 481 US 1008 [1987]).

Section 214's three-year limitations period leaves a statute-of-limitations defense viable when a complaint alleges injuries dating more than three years before filing.

Gonzalez v. Wingate at Beacon · filed 2016-03-02

Since the subject complaints were not filed until December 2011 and December 2012, Gonzalez failed to demonstrate that all of her claims were timely (see generally CPLR 214).

Section 214(3) imposes a three-year limitations period on claims to recover converted property.

Dwyer v. Valachovic · filed 2016-03-03(3)

We note that any claim for recovery of the vehicle accrued in September 2009, more than three years before decedent's death, and is therefore time-barred (see CPLR 214 [3]; Matter of Perelman, 123 AD3d at 436-437).

Section 214(4) imposes a three-year limitations period on negligence claims for injury to property.

Ritchie Capital Management, L.L.C. v. General Electric Capital Corp. · filed 2015-08-04(4)

As an initial matter, Ritchie’s negligence claim is time-barred: New York imposes a three-year statute of limitations for negligence claims.

Section 214 gives tortious interference with contract and conversion claims a three-year limitations period that runs from the injury or theft, even if the plaintiff discovers it later.

Techno-Comp, Inc. v. Arcabascio · filed 2015-09-08(3), (4)

Under New York law, claims for tortious interference with contract and conversion are governed by a three-year statute of limitations. ... Accordingly, since Techno-Comp has failed to allege facts sufficient to justify tolling the limitations period, the claims for tortious interference with contract and conversion are dismissed as time-barred.

Section 214(2) provides a three-year limitations period for claims under General Business Law §§ 349 and 350.

People v. Orbital Publishing Group, Inc. · filed 2015-11-30(2)

The three-year period corresponds to the three-year statute of limitations period for claims under General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 (CPLR 214 [2]; see also Wender v Gilberg Agency, 276 AD2d 311, 312 [1st Dept 2000]).

Section 214(2) gives NYSHRL discrimination claims a three-year limitations period measured from accrual.

Petty v. City of New York · filed 2016-03-04(2)

Claims under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL are subject to a three-year statute of limitations from the date that the claims accrue.

Section 214’s three-year limitations period applies to professional malpractice, negligence, and conversion claims.

Theaprin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Conway · filed 2016-03-30(3), (6)

The Supreme Court correctly held that the plaintiffs’ causes of action alleging professional malpractice, negligence, and conversion were untimely brought (see CPLR 214 [3], [6]).

Section 214(2) gives a plaintiff three years to bring a claim for liability imposed by statute, beginning when the facts needed to establish the claim have occurred.

West Chelsea Building LLC v. Guttman · filed 2016-03-31(2)

This documentary evidence is prima facie proof that as of January 22, 2007, the building was erected to a height that was 10 stories taller than plaintiff’s chimney, and sited within 100 feet of the chimney, thus triggering the three-year limitations period on plaintiff’s claim that defendants failed to comply with Administrative Code § 27-860 (a).

Section 214 sets a three-year limitations period for conversion and tortious interference with contractual relations claims.

PIERONI, THOMAS J. v. PHILLIPS LYTLE LLP · filed 2016-06-10(3), (4)

Even assuming, arguendo, that the tort of intentional infliction of economic harm is recognized in New York, we note that it would have a three-year statute of limitations (see Kronos, Inc. v AVX Corp., 81 NY2d 90, 93 n 1), and there is also a three-year statute of limitations for the torts of conversion (see CPLR 214 [3]; DiMatteo v Cosentino, 71 AD3d 1430, 1431) and tortious interference with contractual relations (see CPLR 214 [4]; Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v Freed, 288 AD2d 818, 818-819). Those causes of action accrued in 2007 and are therefore time-barred.

Section 214 (2) sets a three-year limitations period for Human Rights Law actions.

New York State Division of Human Rights v. Folino · filed 2016-06-17(2)

We agree with defendants that Supreme Court erred in denying their preanswer motion to dismiss the complaint as time-barred pursuant to CPLR 214 (2).

Section 214 provides a three-year limitations period for an architect’s professional malpractice claim under subdivision (6) and for a property injury claim against an unlicensed person under subdivision (4).

Willis Ave Development, LLC v. Block 3400 Construction Corp. · filed 2016-09-14

A cause of action to recover damages against an architect for professional malpractice is governed by a three-year statute of limitations (see CPLR 214 [6]; ...). ... Since Adam was not a licensed professional, the cause of action sounding in professional malpractice asserted against him is governed by the three-year statute of limitations that is generally applicable to claims arising from injury to property (see CPLR 214 [4]).

Section 214(4) and (5) provide a three-year limitations period for the personal injury and products liability claims at issue.

Girau v. Europower, Inc. · filed 2016-09-16(4), (5)

Plaintiffs’ personal injury and products liability claims are governed by New York law, which provides a three year statute of limitations. ... The statute of limitations on Plaintiffs’ claims ran on December 18, 2011, three-years after the hose ruptured and caused Plaintiffs serious injury.

Section 214(5) sets a three-year limitations period for personal injury claims, which supplies the filing deadline for § 1983 claims in New York.

Green v. Schmelzle · filed 2016-09-28(5)

New York’s statute of limitations for a personal injury claim is three years.

Section 214(6) bars optometrist malpractice claims based on visits outside its three-year limitations period.

Flaherty v. Kantrowich · filed 2016-11-22(6)

Supreme Court properly dismissed plaintiff’s action on the ground that his claims based on all visits prior to February 10, 2012 were barred by the applicable three-year statute of limitations (CPLR 214 [6]; see Boothe v Weiss, 107 AD2d 730, 731 [2d Dept 1985]).

Section 214(2) imposes a three-year limitations period on claims under General Business Law §§ 349 and 350.

Accredited Aides Plus, Inc. v. Program Risk Management, Inc. · filed 2017-01-05(2)

Liberally construed, this cause of action should not have been dismissed at this juncture, to the extent that the claims accrued within the three-year statute of limitations (see CPLR 214 [2]; 84 Lbr. Co., L.P. v Barringer, 110 AD3d 1224, 1226-1227 [2013]; see also Benetech, Inc. v Omni Fin. Group, Inc., 116 AD3d 1190, 1191 [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 909 [2014]).

Section 214(5) provides a three-year limitations period for personal injury actions, which applies to § 1983 claims filed in New York.

Lefebvre v. Morgan · filed 2017-02-10(5)

Plaintiff thus had three years from the date of the violation to file this claim. ... Plaintiff filed his initial Complaint on July 15, 2014, more than three years after his privacy claim accrued. Thus, Plaintiffs privacy claim is time-barred unless there is a basis for tolling of the statute of limitations.

Section 214(4) gives plaintiffs three years to bring negligence claims alleging a failure to properly record mortgages.

Yarbro v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · filed 2016-06-30(4)

The negligence claims, which allege a failure to properly record certain mortgages, are governed by CPLR 214 (4), a three-year statute of limitations (see First Am. Tit. Ins. Co. of N.Y. v Fiserve Fulfillment Servs., Inc., 2008 WL 282019, *2, 2008 US Dist LEXIS 7344, *6 [SD NY, Jan. 25, 2008, No. 06 Civ 7132(NRB)]).

Section 214(4) sets a three-year limitations period for negligence claims involving a loss of funds.

NYAHSA Services, Inc., Self-Insurance Trust v. Recco Home Care Services, Inc. · filed 2016-07-07(4)

As the statute of limitations for negligence that results in a loss of funds is three years (see CPLR 214 [4]; Roslyn Union Free Sch. Dist. v Barkan, 16 NY3d 643, 648 n 5 [2011]), and defendant did not file the third-party action until July 2013, Supreme Court properly dismissed the negligence claim as untimely (see IDT Corp. v Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., 12 NY3d 132, 139-140 [2009]; McCormick v Favreau, 82 AD3d 1537, 1539 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 712 [2011]; Kazakhstan Inv. Fund v Manolovici, 306 AD2d 36, 36 [2003]; Matter of Kaszirer v Kaszirer, 286 AD2d 598, 598-599 [2001]).

Section 214(4) gives negligence claims for loss of funds a three-year limitations period.

NYAHSA Services, Inc., Self-Insurance Trust v. People Care Incorporated · filed 2016-07-07(4)

The statute of limitations for negligence that results in a loss of funds is three years (see CPLR 214 [4]; Roslyn Union Free Sch. Dist. v Barkan, 16 NY3d 643, 648 n 5 [2011]).

Section 214(5) imposes a three-year limitations period on claims for personal injury and property damage.

Sharaf v. Younger · filed 2016-09-07(5)

Upon a review of the record, we find that the cause of action relating to the injuries plaintiff sustained on June 5, 2003, when the kitchen ceiling fell on him, and the cause of action to recover for property damage that occurred on June 18, 2009, when there was a flood in the premises, are time-barred under the three-year statute of limitations ( see CPLR 214 [5]).

Section 214(4) sets a three-year limitations period for New York common law misappropriation claims.

Geovector Corp. v. Samsung Electronics Co. · filed 2017-02-14(4)

A New York common law misappropriation claim is also subject to a three year statute of limitations. N.Y. C.P.L.R § 214(4).

Section 214 provides a three-year limitations period for personal injury actions, which applies to Section 1983 false arrest claims filed in New York.

Li v. City of New York · filed 2017-03-31

In New York State, the applicable statute of limitations for personal injuries is three years. N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214 (McKinney). Thus, Plaintiff should have filed her false arrest claim within three years of the date on which the cause of action accrued.

Section 214(4) provides a three-year limitations period that applies to negligence claims.

Fahlund v. Nassau County · filed 2017-07-14(4)

Furthermore, the Plaintiffs Section 1983, New York State constitutional violation, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and negligence claims against the proposed substitute defendant? are not time-barred because the statute of limitations for each of those causes of action is three years.

Section 214 provides a three-year limitations period for the federal civil rights claims at issue.

Holihan v. Town of Orangetown · filed 2017-07-26(4), (5)

These causes of action were each governed by ... a three-year statute of limitations (see CPLR 214 [4], [5]; Owens v Okure, 488 US 235, 240, 251 [1989]; Mallard v Potenza, 376 Fed Appx 132, 133 [2d Cir 2010]; Corsello v Verizon N.Y., Inc., 77 AD3d 344, 361 [2010], mod on other grounds 18 NY3d 777 [2012]).

Section 214(2) imposes a three-year limitations period on the City’s statutory public nuisance claim, allowing recovery only for nuisance occurring within three years before the action began.

Amelius v. Grand Imperial LLC · filed 2017-09-11(2)

A three-year statute of limitations applies to the City’s statutory claims, including public nuisance. ... Here, the City cannot recover on its public nuisance cause of action to the extent that the events it has complained of go back more than three years from when it commenced its complaint, or July 18, 2013.

Section 214(4) gives a plaintiff three years to bring a negligence claim for damage to property.

U.S. Energy Development Corp. v. Superior Well Services, Inc. · filed 2017-11-09(4)

We agree with defendant, however, that the court erred in denying that part of the motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the negligence cause of action insofar as it asserts claims with respect to any of plaintiff’s wells fracked prior to September 7, 2007, and we therefore modify the order accordingly. Those claims are time-barred. Plaintiff did not commence the instant action until September 7, 2010, and the applicable statute of limitations for defendant’s cause of action is three years (see CPLR 214 [4]; 5 Awnings Plus, Inc. v Moses Ins. Group, Inc., 108 AD3d 1198, 1199 [4th Dept 2013]).

Section 214 sets a three-year limitations period for replevin, conversion, and aiding and abetting conversion claims.

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

Claims for replevin, conversion, and aiding and abetting conversion are subject to New York's three-year statute of limitations. See N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214.

Section 214(2) gives claims under Executive Law § 296 a three-year limitations period.

Williams v. City of Yonkers · filed 2018-04-25(2)

Causes of action brought under Executive Law § 296 have a three-year statute of limitations ( see CPLR 214[2]; Cahill v State of N.Y. Stony Brook Univ. Hosp., 139 AD3d 779, 780; Kwarren v American Airlines, 303 AD2d 722).

Section 214(2) requires a claim for damages under General Business Law § 349 to be commenced within three years of accrual.

Bennett v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. · filed 2018-05-16(2)

We conclude that the cause of action pursuant to General Business Law § 349 was not untimely. A cause of action to recover damages pursuant to General Business Law § 349 must be commenced within three years of its accrual ( see CPLR 214[2]; Corsello v Verizon N.Y., Inc ., 18 NY3d 777, 790).

Section 214(3) provides a three-year limitations period for these claims seeking damages for conversion and unjust enrichment.

L.G.B. Dev., Inc. v. Shammas · filed 2018-06-06(3)

These causes of action sought damages for conversion and unjust enrichment and were barred by the three-year limitations period provided in CPLR 214(3) ( see Stewart v GDC Tower at Greystone , 138 AD3d 729; Ingrami v Rovner , 45 AD3d 806).

CPLR 214(3) and (4) impose a three-year limitations period on conversion, property damage and personal injury claims.

Carroll v. Rondout Yacht Basin, Inc. · filed 2018-06-07(3), (4)

Supreme Court properly determined that plaintiff's claims for conversion, property damage and personal injury were time-barred. Each of these causes of action is subject to a three-year statute of limitations ( see CPLR 214 [3], [4]), and the allegations on which each was based occurred not later than June 2008, when plaintiff's boat was removed from defendant's marina. Plaintiff's argument that commencement of the Town Court proceeding seeking a stay of [*2]his eviction from the marina, which concluded in June 2008, tolled the statute of limitations is meritless.

Section 214(2) gives claims under Insurance Law § 2123 a three-year statute of limitations.

Spinnato v. Unity of Omaha Life Ins. Co. · filed 2018-06-19(2)

Violations of Insurance Law § 2123 are governed by CPLR § 214(2), which subjects them to a three-year statute of limitations.

Section 214(4) imposes a three-year limitations period on claims for misappropriation of trade secrets, tortious interference, and unfair competition as injuries to property.

CDx Labs., Inc. v. Zila, Inc. · filed 2018-06-27(4)

Causes of action for misappropriation of trade secrets, tortious interference, and unfair competition are injuries to property, and are governed by a three-year statute of limitations ( see CPLR 214[4]; IDT Corp. v Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., 12 NY3d 132, 140; Andrew Greenberg, Inc. v Svane, Inc., 36 AD3d 1094, 1098; Demas v Levitsky, 291 AD2d 653; Opals on Ice Lingerie v BodyLines, Inc., 425 F Supp 2d 286, 296 [ED NY]).

Section 214(2) bars an action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from a self-insurer if it is commenced more than three years after the cause of action accrues.

S & R Med., P.C. v. NYCTA-MABSTOA · filed 2018-11-09(2)

As the action was not commenced until more than three years after the cause of action had accrued, the action was barred by the three-year statute of limitations set forth in CPLR 214 (2) ( see Contact Chiropractic, P.C. v New York City Tr. Auth. , 31 NY3d 187 [2018]).

Section 214(4) sets a three-year limitations period for claims seeking damages for injury to property.

Nahl v. Jaoude · filed 2018-12-12(4)

Under New York law, ... a claim to recover damages for injury to property is subject to a three-year statute of limitations. ... Leave to amend is therefore denied with respect to the state law claims.

Section 214(2) imposes a three-year limitations period that bars employment discrimination allegations based on earlier events.

Marino v. City of New York · filed 2018-12-27(2)

Plaintiff's allegations of employment discrimination based on events that occurred before April 8, 2011 are time-barred under the applicable three-year statute of limitations (CPLR 214[2]; Administrative Code of City of NY § 8-502[d]; see Jae Hee Chung v Mary Manning Walsh Nursing Home Co., Inc. , 147 AD3d 452 , 453 [1st Dept 2017]).

Section 214(5)'s three-year limitations period does not bar a claim for damages suffered within three years before the complaint was filed.

George v. Windham · filed 2019-02-20(5)

Furthermore, contrary to the court's determination, this cause of action was not barred by the applicable statute of limitations, as the damages allegedly suffered by the plaintiff occurred within three years prior to the filing of the complaint ( see CPLR 214[5]; cf . Chambers v Mirkinson , 68 AD3d 702, 706).

Section 214(2) requires New York State Human Rights Law discrimination claims to be commenced within three years of the alleged unlawful act.

Mejia v. T.N. 888 Eighth Ave. LLC Co. · filed 2019-02-28(2)

Actions for discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law (State HRL) and the City Human Rights Law (City HRL) must be commenced within three years after the alleged unlawful discriminatory practice or act of discriminatory harassment (CPLR 214[2]; Administrative Code of City of NY § 8-502[d]).

Section 214(2) sets a three-year limitations period for State Human Rights Law discrimination and hostile work environment claims.

Akinde v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp. · filed 2019-02-28(2)

Plaintiff's claims of discrimination and hostile work environment under the State and City Human Rights Laws are based on alleged conduct that occurred more than three years before this action was commenced in April 2016 and therefore were correctly dismissed as time-barred (CPLR 214[2]; Administrative Code of City of NY § 8—502[d]).

Section 214(2) provides a three-year limitations period that bars untimely allegations supporting statutory employment claims.

McCabe v. Consulate Gen. of Can. · filed 2019-03-07(2)

In any case, the facts alleged in his amended complaint are largely barred by the three-year statute of limitations ( see CPLR 214[2]; Administrative Code § 8-502[d]), and the remaining facts do not sufficiently support his claims to make a prima facie case.

Section 214(3) provides a three-year limitations period for the tort claims addressed by the court.

Underground Utils., Inc. v. Comptroller of the City of N.Y. · filed 2019-03-12(3)

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]; ... [three years for conversion]).

Section 214(3) provides a three-year limitations period for conversion claims.

Rabiea v. Darwish · filed 2019-03-06(3)

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 214(5) provides a limitations period for personal injury claims; filing after it expires can support dismissal.

Laner v. Laner · filed 2018-09-26(5)

NYPH and SIUH demonstrated, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not commence this action until after the expiration of the applicable statutes of limitations ( see CPLR 214[5]; 214-a, 215[3]; Goldsmith v Howmedica, Inc., 67 NY2d 120, 122; Gray v Wyckoff Hgts. Med. Ctr., 155 AD3d 616, 617; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Eitani, 148 AD3d 193, 197; Wilson v Erra, 94 AD3d 756; Doe v Community Health Plan, 23 AD3d 778).

Section 214(2) bars an action filed more than three years after the cause of action accrues.

Bay Needle Care Acupuncture, P.C. v. NY City Tr. Auth. · filed 2019-03-22(2)

As defendant correctly argues, since the action was not commenced until more than three years after the cause of action had accrued, the action was barred by the three-year statute of limitations set forth in CPLR 214 (2) ( see Contact Chiropractic, P.C. v New York City Tr. Auth. , 31 NY3d 187 [2018]; S & R Med., P.C. v NYCTA-MABSTOA , 61 Misc 3d 138 [A], 2018 NY Slip Op 51582[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2018]).

Section 214(2) sets a three-year limitations period for claims under Insurance Law §§ 2123 and 4226.

Odierna v. RSK, LLC · filed 2019-04-03(2)

A cause of action to recover damages for violations of Insurance Law §§ 2123 and 4226 is governed by a three-year statute of limitations ( see CPLR 214[2]; Pike v New York Life Ins. Co. , 72 AD3d 1043, 1047; Dolce v Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co. , 272 AD2d 432). The plaintiffs commenced this action in July 2014—more than eight years after the trust was allegedly induced to replace the Guardian policies with the Met Life policy. We agree with the Supreme Court's determination that all of the causes of action premised on the purchase of the Met Life policy in 2006 were time-barred ( see Celestin v Simpson , 153 AD3d 656, 657; Pike v New York Life Ins. Co. , 72 AD3d at 1047).

Section 214(5) gives negligence claims, including negligent supervision and retention and negligent infliction of emotional distress, a three-year limitations period.

Geiss v. Weinstein Company Holdings LLC · filed 2019-04-17(5)

The New York limitations periods are three years for negligence claims, including negligent supervision and retention, and negligent infliction of emotional distress, N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214(5), and one year for intentional torts, including battery, assault, false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. ... Accordingly, unless any of the limitations periods are tolled, intentional tort claims accruing before December 6, 2016 and negligence claims accruing before December 6, 2014 are untimely.

Section 214(5) provides a three-year limitations period for personal injury actions, which applies to § 1983 claims brought in New York.

Vasquez v. DOE · filed 2019-05-06(5)

Here, New York’s three-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions applies. Id. (citing, inter alia, N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214(5)); see also Fairley v. Collins, No. 09-CV-6894, 2011 WL 1002422, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2011) (same).

Section 214(5) provides the three-year limitations period applied to § 1983 claims arising in New York.

Wheeler v. Doe · filed 2019-05-07(5)

Here, New York’s three-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions applies.

Section 214(5) provides a three-year limitations period for personal injury actions, which the court applied to this § 1983 claim.

Elleby v. Doe(s) · filed 2019-06-25(5)

Judge Aaron further explains that “[u]nder New York law, personal injury actions are subject to a three-year statute of limitations.” Id. (quoting N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214(5)). Plaintiff’s objection is, therefore, OVERRULED.

Section 214 provides a three-year limitations period for personal injury claims in New York, including claims brought under section 1983.

Peralta v. City Of New York · filed 2019-07-18

For New York, this period is three years. Owens, 488 U.S. at 251; N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214.

Section 214(5) gives personal injury actions a three-year limitations period, which the court applied to Rehabilitation Act claims in New York.

De Figueroa v. New York State, State University of New York at Stony Brook · filed 2019-09-05(5)

In New York, the statute of limitations for personal injury actions is three years. See Pearl v. City of Long Beach, 296 F.3d 76, 79 (2d Cir. 2002); see also N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214(5). Thus, Plaintiff may only assert her claims under the Rehabilitation Act as to Defendants’ actions after January 26, 2014.

Section 214(2) gives claims under New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 a three-year limitations period that begins when the plaintiff purchases the defective product.

Schutte v. Corelle Brands Holdings Inc. · filed 2019-09-30(2)

“Claims brought under New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 are subject to a three-year statute of limitations.” Martin Hilti Family Tr., 137 F. Supp. 3d at 466; NY CPLR § 214(2). The cause of action begins to accrue at the time Plaintiffs purchased the inherently defective Products. ... Her claims, then, are time-barred as she purchased her Pyrex product more than three years ago.

Section 214(5) sets a three-year limitations period for personal injury actions, which the court applied to Rehabilitation Act claims in New York.

Seitz v. New York State · filed 2019-09-30(5)

In New York, the statute of limitations for personal injury actions is three years. See Pearl v. City of Long Beach, 296 F.3d 76, 79 (2d Cir. 2002); see also N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214(5). Thus, Plaintiff may only assert her claims under the Rehabilitation Act as to Defendants’ actions after July 20, 2015.

CPLR 214(5) sets a three-year limitations period for personal injury actions.

Adduci v. 1829 Park Place, LLC · filed 2019-10-02(5)

On January 16, 2018, more than 27 months after answering the complaint and well after the expiration of the 3-year statute of limitations governing the plaintiff's action ( see CPLR 214[5]), the defendant moved for leave to amend its answer to deny that it was the owner of the subject premises at the time of the accident. ... Here, since the statute of limitations has expired, the defendant's delay in seeking the proposed amendment would cause unfair prejudice to the plaintiff.

Section 214 sets a three-year limitations period for a personal-injury claim.

Dorr v. State of New York · filed 2019-10-23

In October 2017, after the expiration of the three-year statute of limitations applicable to the claim ( see CPLR 214), the defendant moved to dismiss the claim for failure to serve a timely claim. ... Once the applicable limitations period expired in this case, the Court of Claims was without authority either to entertain a motion for leave to file a late claim, or, sua sponte, to grant such relief ( see Roberts v City Univ. of N.Y. , 41 AD3d 825; Crum & Foster Ins. Co. v State of New York , 25 AD3d 643).

Section 214 supplies a three-year limitations period for § 1983 actions filed in New York.

Sheldon v. Galant · filed 2019-12-06

As previously discussed, Section 1983 actions filed in New York are subject to a three-year statute of limitations, starting from the time plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury. N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214 ; Pearl v. City of Long Beach, 296 F.3d at 80. To be deemed timely filed , Plaintiff’s claim(s) should have been filed in April 2016.

Section 214 imposes a three-year limitations period on claims for legal malpractice, violation of Judiciary Law § 487, negligent misrepresentation, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Jemima O. v. Schwartzapfel, P.C. · filed 2019-12-10

The motion court correctly found that plaintiff's causes of action for legal malpractice, violation of Judiciary Law § 487, negligent misrepresentation and negligent infliction of emotional distress were time-barred as they accrued on September 10, 2013, at the latest, and plaintiff did not commence the instant action until May 31, 2017, over eight months after the applicable three-year statute of limitations had already expired ( see CPLR 214; Benjamin v Allstate Ins. Co. , 127 AD3d 1120, 1121 [2d Dept 2015]; Colon v Banco Popular N. Am. , 59 AD3d 300, 300 [1st Dept 2009]).

Claims subject to CPLR 214(5)'s three-year limitations period are untimely if commenced more than three years after they accrue.

Michael M. v. Cummiskey · filed 2019-12-20(5)

Plaintiff contended in the motion court that the remaining causes of action, all of which had either one-year or three-year statutes of limitations ( see generally CPLR 214 [5]; 215 [3]; Owens v Okure , 488 US 235, 251 [1989]), accrued on December 17, 2014, and thus the court properly concluded that they were untimely as well.

Section 214 supplies a three-year limitations period for § 1983 claims brought in New York.

Duran v. The County of Monroe · filed 2019-12-02

State law governs the statute of limitations for § 1983 actions; in New York, the applicable statute of limitations is three years.

Section 214 supplies a three-year limitations period for § 1983 false arrest claims filed in New York.

Hincapie v. City of New York · filed 2020-01-22

In New York, the applicable statute of limitations is three years. N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214 (McKinney). Thus, Plaintiff should have filed his false arrest claim within three years of the date on which the cause of action accrued.

Section 214(5) provides the three-year personal injury limitations period applied to § 1983 claims in New York.

Kislowski v. Kelley · filed 2020-01-30(5)

The statute of limitations for § 1983 claims "is found in the 'general or residual [state] statute [of limitations] for personal injury actions,'" ... which in New York is a period of three years, see N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214(5).

Section 214 imposes a three-year limit on claims for strict liability, negligence, and negligent infliction of emotional distress arising from personal injury.

Durstenberg v. Electrolux Home Prods., Inc. · filed 2020-03-05

Under these circumstances, plaintiff's claims sounding in strict liability, negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress were interposed against P.C. Richard on March 18, 2016, at the earliest (CPLR 305; Long v Sowande , 27 AD3d 247, 248 [1st Dept 2006]; Benn v Losquadro Ice Co., Inc. , 65 AD3d 655, 656 [2d Dept 2009]), and thus, the claims are time-barred (CPLR 214).

Section 214(5) bars a claim against a defendant when no action against that defendant is commenced within three years of the accident.

Benitez-Rivera v. New York Botanical Garden, Inc. · filed 2020-03-12(5)

Defendant LCR-Webster established prima facie that no action was commenced against it before the applicable three-year statute of limitations had expired on March 6, 2016 (CPLR 214[5]; see MTGLQ Invs., LP v Wozencraft , 172 AD3d 644 [1st Dept 2019], lv dismissed 34 NY3d 1010 [2019]).

Section 214 generally gives tort claims a three-year limitations period; dismissal at the pleading stage is premature when the facts do not establish when the claim accrued.

Choi v. 37 Parsons Realty LLC · filed 2020-03-16

These causes of action all sound in tort, which type of claim is generally barred in New York if brought more than three years after it accrues. See N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214; Kronos, Inc. v. AVX Corp., 81 N.Y.2d 90, 92, 595 N.Y.S.2d 931, 932 (1993). ... I agree with plaintiffs that it would be premature to dismiss these state law claims at this point in time. ... The complaint does not provide a concrete date for either a demand or a refusal. ... Thus, the grounds for a dismissal on a statute of limitations defense are certainly not “ironclad.”

Section 214 provides the three-year limitations period applied to Section 1983 claims in New York.

Hagans v. Nassau County Police Department · filed 2020-03-18

In New York, the applicable statute of limitations is three years.

Section 214(2) gives NYSHRL claims three years from accrual to be filed.

Stone v. 23rd Chelsea Associates, LLC · filed 2020-03-30(2)

The statute of limitations for a NYSHRL claim is “three years from the date that the claim accrues.”9 Allen v. New York City Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 51 F. Supp. 3d 504, 511 (S.D.N.Y. 2014); N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214(2). ... The limitations period for his NYSHRL, and NYCHRL claims would have begun at the latest on March 1, 2014.

Section 214 sets a three-year limitations period for conversion and negligence claims; a counterclaim cannot be dismissed as time barred when its allegations do not show that the period has expired.

Porrini v. McRizz, LLC · filed 2020-04-06(3), (4)

Under New York law, the statute of limitations for a breach of contract action is six years, see CDx Labs., Inc. v. Zila, Inc., 80 N.Y.S.3d 382, 383 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018) (citing N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 213 (McKinney) (“CPLR”)), and for conversion and negligence actions it is three years, see Vigilant Ins. Co. of Am. v. Hous. Auth. of El Paso, 660 N.E.2d 1121, 1126 (N.Y. 1995) (citing CPLR § 214(3)) (conversion); Tenenbaum v. Gibbs, 813 N.Y.S.2d 155, 156 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006) (citing CPLR § 214(4)) (negligence). ... Here, the face of the defendants’ counterclaims does not show that those claims are time barred.

Section 214(2) provides a three-year period for bringing the NY UCC article 9 claim at issue.

Koblence v. Modern Pawn Brokers, Inc. · filed 2020-04-23(2)

The claim under NY UCC article 9 should not have been dismissed on timeliness grounds. It did not require allegations of deception (NY UCC 9-610), and was brought within three years of the subject transaction ( see CPLR 214[2]).

Section 214(5) sets a three-year limitations period for personal injury actions, including § 1983 excessive force claims brought in New York.

Gutek v. Borchardt · filed 2020-05-11(5)

In New York, the statute of limitations for personal injury actions is three years. Pearl v. City of Long Beach, 296 F.3d 76, 80 (2d Cir. 2002) (citing N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214(5)). In this case, the statute of limitations on Plaintiff’s excessive force claim began to run on July 8, 2014, the date of the incident, and expired three years later on July 8, 2017.

Section 214(5) supplies the three-year limitations period for personal injury claims, which courts apply to Section 1983 claims brought in New York.

Harrigan v. City of New York · filed 2020-05-20(5)

“Thus, courts apply the statute of limitations for personal injury actions under state law,” which in New York is three years.

Section 214(2) provides a three-year limitations period for NYSHRL claims.

Tulczynska v. Queens Hospital Center · filed 2020-06-01(2)

I note that claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are subject to New York’s three-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions brought in New York. Duplan v. City of New York, 888 F.3d 612, 619 (2d Cir. 2018). NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims are subject to the same time limit. Allen v. New York City Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 51 F. Supp. 3d 504, 511 (S.D.N.Y. 2014); N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214(2); N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8–502(d).

Section 214 supplies a three-year limitations period for FCA retaliation claims when borrowed as the analogous New York statute.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel. JOHN A. WOOD, and on behalf of the STATES of CALIFORNIA v. ALLERGAN, INC. · filed 2020-06-10

Accordingly, courts in this District have applied the “three-year limitations period borrowed from New York’s residuary statute of limitations” to retaliation claims under N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214). It follows that Wood’s retaliation claim needed to be filed by July 6, 2013 — three years after he was allegedly terminated “in retaliation for his whistle-blowing activities,” Compl. ¶ 266 — unless Wood is entitled to equitable tolling.

Section 214(4) bars trespass, prima facie tort, private nuisance, and negligence claims based on conduct more than three years before the action began.

Benjamin v. Assad · filed 2020-08-12(4)

The Supreme Court should have granted those branches of the defendants' motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) to dismiss as time-barred the abuse of process cause of action to the extent predicated on allegations of conduct by the defendants prior to November 1, 2015 ( see CPLR 215[3]; Bittner v Cummings , 188 AD2d 504, 506), and the trespass, prima facie tort, private nuisance, and negligence causes of actions to the extent predicated on allegations of conduct by the defendants prior to November 1, 2013 ( see CPLR 214[4]; Jemison v Crichlow , 139 AD2d 332, 336, affd 74 NY2d 726).

Section 214(5) supplies the three-year limitations period for § 1983 claims brought in New York.

Blackwood v. Ossining Police Department · filed 2020-09-11(5)

The statute of limitations for § 1983 claims is found in the “general or residual [state] statute [of limitations] for personal injury actions.” Pearl v. City of Long Beach, 296 F.3d 76, 79 (2d Cir. 2002) (quoting Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235, 249-50 (1989)). In New York, that period is three years. See N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214(5).

The court applied section 214’s three-year period to dismiss claims it found untimely.

Redd v. County Of Nassau · filed 2020-01-29

N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214 (three-year statute of limitations for assault and battery, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and conversion). Here, the limitations period with respect to claims arising out of events that occurred on January 18, 2014, February 9, 2014, July 1, 2014, and January 10, 2015 expired three- years later on January 18, 2017, February 9, 2017, July 1, 2017, and January 10, 2018, respectively.

Section 214(5) provides a three-year limitations period that courts apply to § 1983 claims arising in New York.

Massey-Smith v. The City of New York · filed 2020-04-06(5)

In New York, the relevant limitations period is three years, see N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214(5), so Smith’s complaint “must have been filed within three years of the accrual of [his] claim,” Smith v. Campbell, 782 F.3d 93, 100 (2d Cir. 2015). ... Because the Fourth Amended Complaint was filed on April 5, 2019, any § 1983 claims that accrued before April 5, 2016, are barred, unless they can be shown to relate back to an earlier filing.

Section 214(2) sets a three-year limitations period for NY HRL discrimination claims.

Parks v. Buffalo City School District · filed 2020-04-30(2)

The statute of limitations for discrimination claims brought under the NY HRL is three years.

Section 214(2) gives NYSHRL hostile work environment claims a three-year limitations period.

Singer v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation · filed 2020-06-02(2)

The statute of limitations for plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim under NYSHRL is three years. See N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214(2); Russo v. New York Presbyterian Hosp., 972 F. Supp. 2d 429, 445 (E.D.N.Y. 2013). ... Therefore, plaintiff’s hostile work environment claims under federal and state law are untimely because his EEOC complaint was lodged almost four years after the last incident in December 2013.

Section 214(2) gives NYSHRL claims a three-year limitations period, barring earlier failure-to-accommodate claims.

Kornmann v. The City of New York Business Integrity Commission · filed 2020-06-15(2)

The statute of limitations for plaintiff’s NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims is three years. See N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214(2); N.Y.C. Admin Code § 8-502. ... Any earlier claims for failure to accommodate are therefore time-barred.

Section 214(5) supplies a three-year limitations period that applies to Sections 1983 and 1985 claims in New York.

Kelly v. The State of New York · filed 2020-11-30(5)

Given that Plaintiff’s only allegations against Fisher relate to Plaintiff’s purchase of his marriage license from Fisher in 1998, Plaintiff’s Sections 1983 and 1985 claims arising from that transaction are well-outside the three-year statute of limitations given his April 9, 2019 filing of the complaint.

Section 214(3) sets a three-year limitation period for conversion claims and unjust-enrichment claims seeking money damages.

Siegler v. Lippe · filed 2020-12-02(3)

A cause of action to recover damages for conversion is subject to a three-year limitation period ( see CPLR 214[3]; Obstfeld v Thermo Niton Analyzers, LLC , 168 AD3d 1080, 1083). ... Here, in light of allegations concerning events that took place in 2016 and 2017, the defendants failed to meet their initial burden of demonstrating, prima facie, that the causes of action to recover damages for conversion are time-barred in this action commenced in 2018. ... A three-year statute of limitations governs causes of action alleging unjust enrichment when the plaintiff is seeking monetary relief ( see CPLR [*3]214[3]; Ingrami v Rovner , 45 AD3d 806, 808). ... Here, in light of allegations concerning events that took place in 2016 and 2017, the defendants failed to meet their initial burden of demonstrating, prima facie, that the cause of action to recover damages for unjust enrichment is time-barred in this action commenced in 2018.

Section 214’s three-year limitations period for negligence may apply to claims against an employer even when the employee’s alleged conduct was intentional.

Doe v. Advantagecare Physicians, P.C. · filed 2021-01-20

While the plaintiff's damages may have been caused by Weintraub's alleged battery and assault, liability against Advantagecare is not based on an allegation that it intentionally harmed the plaintiff, but that it was negligent ( see De La Cruz v Nour , 134 AD3d 883, 884; Green v Emmanuel African M.E. Church , 278 AD2d 132). Thus, Advantagecare failed to establish, prima facie, that the three-year statute of limitations for negligence ( see CPLR 214) did not apply to the causes of action interposed by the plaintiff against it ( see De La Cruz v Nour , 134 AD3d at 885; see generally N.X. v Cabrini Med. Ctr. , 97 NY2d 247).

Section 214 provides a three-year limitations period for New York personal injury actions, including constitutional torts; that period applies to § 1983 claims brought in New York.

Martinez v. Hynes · filed 2021-01-22

The statute of limitations for civil rights actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is three years. Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235, 249–51 (1989) (discussing Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261 (1985), which held that courts deciding claims under § 1983 should “borrow” the State statute of limitations for personal injury actions); N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214 (McKinney’s) (providing a three-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions arising in New York State, including constitutional torts). Plaintiff’s claim related to his request for documents is dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) as untimely.

Section 214(5) supplies a three-year limitations period for Section 1983 claims arising in New York.

Steinbergin v. City of New York · filed 2021-02-04(5)

The statute of limitations for Section 1983 actions arising in New York is three years. See Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235, 250-51 (1989); N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214(5).

Section 214(5) supplies a three-year limitations period for personal injury actions, including § 1983 false imprisonment claims.

Jones v. City of New York · filed 2021-02-12(5)

Here, Mr. Jones was arraigned on July 3, 2016, the day after his arrest, thus starting the three-year statute-of-limitations clock on his false imprisonment claims. See Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235, 249–50 (1989) (holding that state law statute of limitations applies to § 1983 claims); N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214(5) (providing for three-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions). This suit was filed on September 30, 2019, more than three years after that date. The false imprisonment claims are therefore untimely.

Section 214(5) supplies a three-year limitations period for § 1983 claims brought in New York.

Rodriguez v. City of New York · filed 2021-02-19(5)

In New York, the applicable limitations period is three years. N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214(5).

Section 214(5) gives a plaintiff three years to bring a personal injury claim, starting when the plaintiff first notices injury symptoms rather than when their cause is diagnosed.

Perciballi v. Ethicon, Inc. · filed 2021-03-03(5)

Ms. Perciballi’s injury does not arise from a toxic tort; thus, the statute of limitations began to run when Ms. Perciballi first noticed her symptoms, not when her symptoms were diagnosed.

Section 214(4) and (5) give tortious interference and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims a three-year limitations period under New York law.

De Rothschild v. Serlin · filed 2021-03-08(4), (5)

Tortious interference and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims are subject to a three-year statute of limitations in New York and a four-year statute of limitations in Florida. See N.Y. C.P.L.R. §§ 214(4), 214(5); Fla. Stat. §§ 95.11(3)(a), 95.11(3)(o). Because Plaintiff’s tortious interference and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims are premised on conduct that took place no later than 2013, those claims expired in 2016 under New York law, and expired in 2017 under Florida law.

Section 214(5) gives negligence claims a three-year limitations period.

Biehner v. City of New York · filed 2021-03-09(5)

The limitations period for negligence is three years. See N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214(5). ... Therefore, the negligence claim is time barred.

Section 214(4) gives these negligence claims a three-year limitations period, barring claims arising from injuries more than three years before the action began.

Rider v. Rainbow Mobile Home Park, LLP · filed 2021-03-19(4)

Here, defendant met its burden of establishing that the three-year limitations period had expired. Plaintiff commenced this action on March 14, 2019, and thus any claims arising from injury that occurred prior to March 14, 2016, are time-barred ( see Brooks v AXA Advisors, LLC [appeal No. 2], 104 AD3d 1178, 1180 [4th Dept 2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 858 [2013]).

Section 214(5) supplies the three-year limitations period for Section 1983 claims brought in New York.

Davis v. NYS Office of Children and Family Services · filed 2021-03-30(5)

The statute of limitations applied to claims brought pursuant to Section 1983 is three years.

Section 214(2) gives claims under New York General Business Law § 349 a three-year limitations period.

Jackson v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA · filed 2021-04-20(2)

In New York, the statute of limitations for Section 349 is controlled by N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214(2) and is three years. ... This claim must be dismissed as time barred consistent with the Court’s rulings above.

Section 214 gives three years to bring conversion claims and claims for injury to property, including trespass, negligence, and claims under RPAPL 861.

Holser v. Geerholt · filed 2021-04-29(3), (4)

A three-year statute of limitations applies to causes of action for conversion ( see CPLR 214 [3]), and "action[s] to recover damages for an injury to property," including causes of action under RPAPL 861, trespass and negligence (CPLR 214 [4]; see Backus v Lyme Adirondack Timberlands II, LLC , 96 AD3d 1248, 1250 [2012]).

Section 214(5) provides the three-year limitations period applied to § 1983 personal injury claims brought in New York.

Cintron v. Doe 1 · filed 2021-05-04(5)

In New York, the limitations period is three years. See id. (citing NY CPLR § 214(5)). ... Because Plaintiff did not file this action until February 21, 2018—well after the statute of limitations expired on May 28, 2017—these claims are time-barred unless the accrual date is subject to tolling.

Section 214(5) supplies the three-year limitations period for § 1983 claims brought in New York.

Shutsha v. Cao · filed 2021-05-10(5)

In New York, that period is three years. See N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214(5). ... Because Plaintiff’s unlawful search claim accrued in 2014, when he was arrested and his bag was searched, rather than after he was convicted and his conviction was set aside, Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim was time-barred when he filed the original complaint in this action in December 2020.

Section 214 imposes a three-year limitations period on negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment claims seeking money damages.

Ritchie Capital Management, L.L.C. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. · filed 2021-06-30(3), (4)

New York has a three-year statute of limitation for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment claims when a plaintiff seeks money damages.

Section 214(5) provides the three-year limitations period that governs § 1983 claims brought in New York.

Ramos v. United States Bureau of Prison · filed 2021-07-26(5)

In New York, that period is three years. See N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214(5).

Section 214 gives New York Human Rights Law claims a three-year limitations period.

Byer v. Periodontal Health Specialists · filed 2021-08-02

Finally, the district court correctly found that Byer's NYHRL and NYLL claims are timely because such claims are subject to three-year and six-year limitation periods, respectively. See N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214; NYLL § 663. Byer filed her complaint on June 23, 2017, and some of the events she complains of happened in the prior three years.

Section 214(5) sets a three-year limitations period for personal injury actions, which applies to Section 504 Rehabilitation Act claims in New York.

Antidormi v. National Railroad Passenger Corp. · filed 2021-08-04(5)

In New York, the statute of limitations for personal injury actions is three years. See Pearl v. City of Long Beach, 296 F.3d 76, 79 (2d Cir. 2002); N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214(5). Thus, because Antidormi filed his complaint on November 15, 2018, he may only assert his claims under the Rehabilitation Act as to Amtrak’s actions after November 15, 2015.

Section 214 ordinarily gives negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims three years to be filed.

Abdulaziz v. McKinsey & Company, Inc. · filed 2021-09-22

Claims sounding in negligence are normally subject to a three-year statute of limitations. See Durstenberg v. Electrolux Home Prod., Inc., 120 N.Y.S.3d 313, 314 (1st Dep’t 2020) (citing N.Y. CPLR § 214) (negligence and NIED); Demian v. Calmenson, 66 N.Y.S.3d 462, 463 (1st Dep’t 2017) (prima facie tort).

Section 214(2) gives NYSHRL claims a three-year limitations period.

Munjal v. Emirates · filed 2022-01-24(2)

Claims under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL are subject to a three-year statute of limitations. N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214(2); N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-502(d); see Canosa v. Ziff, No. 18 Civ. 4115 (PAE), 2019 WL 498865, at *18 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 28, 2019). ... The Court accordingly grants Emirates’ unopposed motion to dismiss the untimely claims under the NYSHRL.

Section 214(2) supplies the ordinary three-year limitations period for NYSHRL claims.

Zagerson v. New York City Department of Education · filed 2022-01-31(2)

The ordinary statute of limitations for claims under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL is three years. See N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214(2); N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8- 502(d).

Section 214 supplies the three-year limitations period for § 1983 actions brought in New York federal courts, subject to New York tolling rules.

Bowers v. City of Salamanca · filed 2021-07-12

“New York’s three[-]year statute of limitations . . . governs [section] 1983 actions brought in federal district court in New York.” Jewell v. Cty. of Nassau, 917 F.2d 738, 740 (2d Cir. 1990) (citing N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214(2); Romer v. Leary, 425 F.2d 186 (2d Cir. 1970)). ... Because Executive Order 202.8 tolled the statute of limitations, the original complaint was timely here.

Section 214(2) supplies a three-year alternative to the Education Law’s shorter limit for these NYSHRL claims; both periods barred the claims.

Jones-Khan v. Westbury Board Of Education-Pless Dickerson · filed 2022-01-31(2)

Moreover, all of Plaintiff’s NYSHRL claims are time-barred whether the relevant statute of statute of limitations is one year or three years. See N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214(2) (three-year statute of limitations); N.Y. Educ. Law § 3813(2-b) (the New York Education Law expressly provides that “notwithstanding any other provision of law providing a longer period of time in which to commence an action[,] . . . no action . . . shall be commenced against any [board of education or officer thereof] more than one year after the cause of action arose[.]”).

Section 214 provides a three-year limitations period for the breach of fiduciary duty and conversion claims arising from these unauthorized transfers.

Marcal Fin. SA v. Middlegate Sec. Ltd. · filed 2022-03-08(3), (4)

The breach of fiduciary duty claim should, however, have been dismissed as time-barred. This claim also accrued when the unauthorized transfers were made ( see generally IDT Corp. v Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co. , 12 NY3d 132, 140 [2009] ["A tort claim accrues . . . when all elements of the tort can be truthfully alleged"]), but the applicable statute of limitations is only three years ( see CPLR 214[4]; Kaufman v Cohen , 307 AD2d 113, 118 [1st Dept 2003]). The conversion claim should also have been dismissed as time-barred, as it also accrued when the unauthorized transfers were made ( see Vigilant Ins. Co. of Am. v Housing Auth. Of City of El Paso, Tex. , 87 NY2d 36, 44-45 [1995] [conversion claim accrues at time of conversion[*2]]) and was subject to a three-year limitations period ( see CPLR 214[3]; Vigilant at 44).