Skip to Main Content
Services Talent Knowledge
Site Search


Our attorneys stay on top of changes in legislation, agency regulations, case law, and industry trends—then craft timely legal alerts to keep clients up to date on legal developments important to their business.

April 4, 2014

Attorney Deceit Claims in New York are Governed by the Six-Year Statute of Limitations

By an unanimous decision on April 1, 2014, the New York State Court of Appeals ruled that claims for attorney deceit are subject to the six-year statute of limitations, rather than the three-year period provided by CPLR 214(2). Melcher v. Greenberg Taurig, LLP, et al., __ N.Y.3d __ (April 1, 2014).

Plaintiff James Melcher brought an action alleging attorney deceit under Judiciary Law § 487. The defendants, Greenberg Traurig, LLP and Leslie D. Corwin, had represented parties sued by Melcher in a prior action to recover his share of profits under the operating agreement of hedge fund Apollo Management. At issue was the authenticity of a document alleged to have amended the operating agreement that diminished Melcher's rights. In his suit brought under the Judiciary Law, Melcher alleged that the defendants concealed material facts and made misleading representations in the prior action concerning the document.

Defendants moved to dismiss based on the three-year statute of limitations in CPLR 214(2) which governs "an action to recover upon a liability "¦ created or imposed by statute". Melcher countered that the limitations period should be six years under CPLR 213(1) which acts as a residual or "catch-all" provision for "action(s) for which no limitation is specifically prescribed by law".

While the trial court agreed with defendants that the applicable limitations period was three years, the court found that the defendants were equitably estopped from asserting the statute of limitations defense and ultimately denied their motion to dismiss. Defendants appealed and the Appellate Division reversed, finding that the doctrine of equitable estoppel did not apply and the claims were barred by the three-year statute of limitations.

The Court of Appeals reversed. The Court cited its opinion in Amalfitano v. Rosenberg, 12 N.Y.3d 8 (2009). Although Judiciary Law § 487 was descended from the first Statute of Westminster adopted by the English Parliament in 1275, the Court found that a cause of action for attorney deceit existed as part of New York's common law prior to being enacted into statute in 1787 and was therefore subject to the six-year statute of limitations in CPLR 213(1). The Court did not address the equitable tolling issues, having found that the claim was timely.

Although the elements of a claim under Judiciary Law § 487 are different from those of a common law fraud cause of action, it is not surprising that the Court of Appeals has ruled that the same statute of limitations applies to both causes of action. The Court's opinion will likely result in more claims being pursued against attorneys under the statute, not only due to the longer statute of limitations, but also because, unlike common fraud, the plaintiff need only prove an attempted deceit, need not prove reliance, and can obtain an award of treble damages.

If you require further information regarding the content of this alert, please contact David B. Cabaniss, Chair of our Professional Liability Practice Area, at (518) 429-4279 or


Click here to sign up for alerts, blog posts, and firm news.

Featured Media


The New York FY 2025 Budget – CDPAP FIs Under Threat


Website Accessibility Lawsuits: Several "Tester" Plaintiffs—Anderson, Beauchamp, Murray, Angeles, Monegro, and Bullock—Targeting Businesses in Recent Flurry of Lawsuits


Updated Bulletin on Tracking Technologies in the Health Care Industry


NYS Board of Regents Adopts Regulations on the Mental Health Diagnostic Privilege


First Department Clarifies Pleading Requirements Under NYS Child Victims Act


Beneficial Ownership Reporting Requirements Under the CTA: Quarterly Reminder

We're Growing in DC!

We’re excited to announce Barclay Damon’s combination with Washington DC–based Shapiro, Lifschitz & Schram. SLS’s 10 lawyers, three paralegals, and four administrative staff will join Barclay Damon while maintaining their current office in DC’s central business district. Our clients will benefit from SLS’s corporate, real estate, finance, and construction litigation experience and national energy-industry profile, and their clients from our full range of services.

Read More

This site uses cookies to give you the best experience possible on our site and in some cases direct advertisements to you based upon your use of our site.

By clicking [I agree], you are agreeing to our use of cookies. For information on what cookies we use and how to manage our use of cookies, please visit our Privacy Statement.

I AgreeOpt-Out