Legal Opinion
Prichard v. 164 Ludlow Corp.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided March 18, 2008PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
The cause of action for fraudulent inducement with respect to plaintiffs’ initial investment in defendant 164 Ludlow Corp. was properly dismissed as barred by the statute of limitations (CPLR 213 [8]; see Siler v Lutheran Social Servs. of Metro. N.Y., 10 AD3d 646, 648 [2004]). Plaintiffs entered into the contract to purchase shares in the corporation, i.e., they completed the act that the alleged fraudulent statements had induced, on September 9, 1997. Accordingly, they had six years from that date, i.e., until September 9, 2003, to commence their action. The action was not commenced until…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Brick v. Cohn-Hall-Marx Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1937
- Sheridan Broadcasting Corp. v. Sydney SmallAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005
- Forum Insurance v. Texarkoma Transportation Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
- Siler v. Lutheran Social Services of Metropolitan New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004
- De Vito v. New York Central SystemAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1965
3Cited by12 opinions
- RamiroAviles v. S&P Global, Inc.District Court, S.D. Illinois · 2019
- Knobel v. ShawAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- Cobalt Partners v. GSC Capital Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Norddeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v. TiltonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2017
- Varga v. McGraw Hill Financial, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2017
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.