As any seasoned litigator knows, statute of limitations issues can be difficult and complex. Given the harsh result if an action is commenced too late, it is imperative to analyze any potential statute of limitations issue immediately. Indeed, this should be done before you agree to take on the case.

Statute of limitations rules governing fraudulent transfer cases, which in New York arise under Article 10 of the Debtor and Creditor Law (DCL), are even more complex than those encountered in garden variety civil litigation. The general rule is deceptively straight-forward: An action (or special proceeding under CPLR 5225(b)/CPLR 5227) seeking to set aside a fraudulent transfer or property is six years. This comes from the residual statute of limitations provision (CPLR 213(1)) governing claims for which no specific limitations period is provided by law.

Consistent with New York's general rule that a claim accrues when all elements of the claim exist, Aetna Life & Cas. Co. v. Nelson, 67 N.Y.2d 169 (1986), fraudulent transfer causes of action accrue on the date the property at issue was transferred. Generally, it does not matter that the plaintiff had no knowledge or notice of the transfer. See Citicorp Trust Bank, FSB v. Makkas, 67 A.D.3d 950 (2d Dep't 2009). However, the statute of limitations may be equitably tolled if the plaintiff was unaware he had a cause of action because of some action by the defendant to conceal the facts. See Grace v. Rosenstock, 169 F.R.D. 473 (E.D.N.Y. 1996).