Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
D. Penguin Bros. Ltd. v. City Natl. Bank
Citation: 2018 NY Slip Op 633Docket: 5604 153494/15
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; January 31, 2018; New York; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
D. Penguin Bros. Ltd. v. City National Bank involves an appeal regarding the dismissal of a complaint against City National Bank (CNB) for fraud and conversion. The Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court modified the lower court's order, allowing for the dismissal to be without prejudice, which permits the plaintiffs to amend their claims. The complaint alleged that various defendants, including CNB, conspired and aided in committing frauds and thefts, specifically by defendants James Robert Williams and David Spiegelman. The court found these allegations conclusory and insufficient to establish a conspiracy or aiding and abetting liability against CNB. Without these connections, the fraud claims against CNB were deemed unviable. Regarding the statute of limitations, the court noted that plaintiffs asserted claims for fraud and conversion; thus, the longer statute of limitations for fraud—six years from the date the cause of action accrued or two years from the time fraud was discovered—applies. The complaint indicated that plaintiff Avraham Glattman was induced to invest $1.5 million in July 2008, and actions were commenced in January 2013, making this claim timely. However, funds provided in 2005 posed a question of timeliness, as the plaintiffs alleged they discovered the thefts only after February 3, 2011. The court rejected CNB's argument that the fraud should have been discovered by spring 2008, noting the complexity of the alleged fraud could have hindered earlier discovery. Ultimately, the court ruled that the claims against CNB were not time-barred, allowing the plaintiffs the opportunity to amend their complaint to address the identified deficiencies. The decision affirmed the lower court's ruling in part but reversed it to allow for potential amendment of the claims.