From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Avildsen v. Prystay

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 12, 1992
181 A.D.2d 516 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Summary

In Bronxville, this Court held that a six-year limitations period under CPLR § 213(8) applied because "[l]iability for investor fraud was not created by the Martin Act, but is recognized in case law predating that legislation" (181 A.D.2d 516, 581 N.Y.S.2d 189).

Summary of this case from People v. Credit Suisse Sec. (Usa) LLC

Opinion

March 12, 1992


Leave to appeal to Court of Appeals granted unless plaintiff-respondent files note of issue with statement of readiness to proceed to trial. Upon failure so to file, the motion for leave to appeal is granted, as indicated.

Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Wallach, Asch, Kassal and Smith, JJ.


Summaries of

Avildsen v. Prystay

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 12, 1992
181 A.D.2d 516 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

In Bronxville, this Court held that a six-year limitations period under CPLR § 213(8) applied because "[l]iability for investor fraud was not created by the Martin Act, but is recognized in case law predating that legislation" (181 A.D.2d 516, 581 N.Y.S.2d 189).

Summary of this case from People v. Credit Suisse Sec. (Usa) LLC
Case details for

Avildsen v. Prystay

Case Details

Full title:AVILDSEN v. PRYSTAY

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Mar 12, 1992

Citations

181 A.D.2d 516 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
581 N.Y.S.2d 189

Citing Cases

People v. Credit Suisse Sec. (Usa) LLC

As originally enacted, however, § 63(12) provided no definition of the term "fraud" (see L. 1956, ch. 592, §…

People v. Allen

Defendants’ contention that CPLR 213(9) should not be applied retroactively ignores the fact that this court…