Elliott Scheinberg. Courtesy photo CPLR 213(2), Judicial Breach of Public Policy, Legislative Amendment Required: Part II
This two-part article provides a deep analysis of cases that ran afoul of legislative intent and held there is no statutory tolling of the limitations period when enforcement of a spousal agreement, which has been incorporated into and survived a judgment of divorce, is initiated by motion rather than by plenary action; effectively, thereby indefinitely extending the time to enforce.
October 14, 2021 at 11:00 AM
14 minute read
Part I discussed the First, Second and Third Departments' construction of CPLR 213(2), which indefinitely extends enforcement of marital agreements contrary to legislative policy and decisional authority.
Legislative Prohibitions Against Extending Limitation Periods
The Legislature prohibits judicial extensions of limitations periods. CPLR 213(2) is component of the broader scheme of Article 2. "When a statute is part of a broader legislative scheme, we construe its language in context and in a manner that harmonizes the related provisions and renders them compatible.'" Regina Metro. Co. v. New York State Div. of Hous. and Community Renewal, 35 N.Y.3d 332, 352 (2020); Kosmider v. Whitney, 34 N.Y.3d 48, 55 (2019); Soto v. J. Crew, 21 N.Y.3d 562, 566 (2013). NY Statutes amplify mandatory, unwavering obedience to legislative intent and purpose:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
‘Second’ Time’s a Charm? The Second Circuit Reaffirms the Contours of the Special Interest Beneficiary Standing Rule
Attorney Fee Reimbursement for Non-Party Subpoena Recipients Under CPLR 3122(d)
6 minute read
Here’s Looking at You, Starwood: A Piercing the Corporate Veil Story?
7 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Many LA County Law Firms Remain Open, Mobilize to Support Affected Employees Amid Historic Firestorm
- 2Stevens & Lee Names New Delaware Shareholder
- 3U.S. Supreme Court Denies Trump Effort to Halt Sentencing
- 4From CLO to President: Kevin Boon Takes the Helm at Mysten Labs
- 5How Law Schools Fared on California's July 2024 Bar Exam
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
