| International Strategies Group, Ltd v ABN AMRO Bank N.V. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 02766 [49 AD3d 474] |
| March 27, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| International Strategies Group, Ltd,Respondent-Appellant, v ABN AMRO Bank N.V., Respondent, and First MerchantBank OSH Ltd., Appellant. |
—[*1] Liddle & Robinson, LLP, New York City (Blaine H. Bortnick of counsel), forrespondent-appellant. Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, New York City (C. Evan Stewart of counsel), forrespondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered February 1, 2007,which, inter alia, denied plaintiff's motion for leave to amend its complaint so as to include acause of action against defendant-respondent for aiding and abetting defendant-appellant's fraud,and denied defendant-appellant's cross motion to dismiss plaintiff's cause of action against it forfraud, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, enteredJune 5, 2005 unanimously dismissed, without costs, as superseded by the appeal from theFebruary 1, 2007 order.
The motion court correctly applied an actual knowledge standard in deciding that plaintiff'sallegations are insufficient to state a cause of action against defendant-respondent for aiding andabetting defendant-appellant's alleged fraud (see National Westminster Bank v Weksel,124 AD2d 144, 149 [1987], lv denied 70 NY2d 604 [1987]; see also JP MorganChase Bank v Winnick, 406 F Supp 2d 247, 252 n 4 [SD NY 2005]; cf. Williams v Sidley Austin Brown &Wood, L.L.P., 38 AD3d 219, 220 [2007]). We reject defendant-appellant's argumentthat the documentary evidence conclusively establishes that plaintiff's assignor was aware of thealleged fraud more than three years prior to institution of the action, and that the action istherefore [*2]barred by California's statute of limitations. Wehave considered the parties' other arguments for affirmative relief and find them unavailing.Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Buckley and Catterson, JJ.