IAN PAI, Plaintiff-appellant-res, v. BLUE MAN GROUP PUBLISHING, LLC Defendants-res-ap, BLUE MAN TORONTO, LLC, def

4180. IAN PAI, Plaintiff-appellant-res, v. BLUE MAN GROUP PUBLISHING, LLC Defendants-res-ap, BLUE MAN TORONTO, LLC, def — Piliero & Associates, PLLC, New York (Robert D. Piliero of counsel), for appellant-res — Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz, PC, New York (Toby M. Butterfield of counsel), for respondents-ap — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barry R. Ostrager, J.), entered September 29, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's sixth cause of action for fraud, and denied defendants' motion to dismiss the remaining causes of action, except to the extent that those causes of action were barred in part by the applicable statutes of limitations, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

4180. IAN PAI, Plaintiff-appellant-res, v. BLUE MAN GROUP PUBLISHING, LLC Defendants-res-ap, BLUE MAN TORONTO, LLC, def — Piliero & Associates, PLLC, New York (Robert D. Piliero of counsel), for appellant-res — Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz, PC, New York (Toby M. Butterfield of counsel), for respondents-ap — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barry R. Ostrager, J.), entered September 29, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s sixth cause of action for fraud, and denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the remaining causes of action, except to the extent that those causes of action were barred in part by the applicable statutes of limitations, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although plaintiff’s breach of fiduciary duty claim grounded in fraud was timely (see IDT Corp. v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., 12 NY3d 132, 139-140 [2009]), the court properly limited plaintiff’s recovery to the applicable statute of limitations periods, which here is six years (see e.g. Carlingford Ctr. Point Assoc. v. MR Realty Assoc., 4 AD3d 179, 180 [1st Dept 2004]; Chiu v. Man Choi Chiu, 71 AD3d 621 [2d Dept 2010]). Contrary to plaintiff’s arguments, his stale claims for underpaid royalties during the fiduciary relationship but prior to the limitations periods were not revived by tolling or equitable estoppel.

IAN PAI, Plaintiff-appellant-res, v. BLUE MAN GROUP PUBLISHING, LLC Defendants-res-ap, BLUE MAN TORONTO, LLC, def

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal