Elliott Scheinberg. Courtesy photo 4th Dep't, Limitations Period of Enforcement of Marital Agreements: Part II
In 'Mussbacher v. Mussmacher', the Fourth Department preserved its uniqueness amongst the Departments, albeit on unstable, contradictory reasoning without any reference to CPLR 213(2), in properly restricting enforcement of a marital agreement to six years of retroactive claims, irrespective of whether pursued by action or by motion.
March 31, 2022 at 11:00 AM
16 minute read
Part I examined the First, Second and Third Departments' construction of CPLR 213(2), which indefinitely extended enforcement of marital agreements contrary to legislative policy.
Legislative prohibitions against extending limitation periods: CPLR 201; NY Statutes Law §§73, 92, 96, 97, 111. The statutory scheme prohibits judicial extensions of limitations periods. "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.'" CPLR 213(2) is a component of the broader scheme, Article 2. Kosmider v. Whitney, 34 N.Y.3d 48, 55 (2019).
This content has been archived.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
Standing Spat: Split 2nd Circuit Lets Challenge to Pfizer Diversity Program Proceed
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Supreme Court Considers Reviving Lawsuit Over Fatal Traffic Stop Shooting
- 2Long Hours and Lack Of Boundaries: Associates In India Are Leaving Their Firms
- 3Goodwin Procter Relocates to Renewable-Powered Office in San Francisco’s Financial District
- 4'Didn't Notice Patient Wasn't Breathing': $13.7M Verdict Against Anesthesiologists
- 5'Astronomical' Interest Rates: $1B Settlement to Resolve Allegations of 'Predatory' Lending Cancels $534M in Small-Business Debts
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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
