On April 8, 2026, the Second Department issued a decision in Cinquemani v. Money Source, Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op. 02100, holding that the statute of limitations on a declaratory judgment claim did not start to run until the plaintiff learned that the defendant was repudiating the plaintiff’s rights, explaining:
A declaratory judgment action is peculiarly different from the actions listed in article 2 of the CPLR and their assigned limitation periods, in that the latter actions seeking coercive relief are described by reference to the gravamen of the claim or the status of the defendant party. No such description attaches generically to actions for declaratory relief. In order to determine the statute of limitations applicable to a particular declaratory judgment action, the court must examine the substance of that action to identify the relationship out of which the claim arises and the relief sought. If the court determines that the underlying dispute can be or could have been resolved through a form of action or proceeding for which a specific limitation period is statutorily provided, that limitation period governs the declaratory judgment action. However, if no other form of proceeding exists for the resolution of the claims tendered in the declaratory judgment action, the six-year limitation of CPLR 213[1] will then be applicable.
An action for declaratory relief accrues when there is a bona fide, justiciable controversy between the parties. A dispute matures into a justiciable controversy when a plaintiff receives direct, definitive notice that the defendant is repudiating his or her rights.
Here, contrary to the defendant’s contention, the allegations in the complaint did not establish that the plaintiff’s cause of action accrued in 2008, since the allegations did not establish that there was a bona fide, justiciable controversy between the parties at that time. The applicable six-year statute of limitations did not begin to run until the plaintiff received definitive notice repudiating his interest in the defendant. The defendant failed to establish that it definitively repudiated the plaintiff’s alleged interest in it prior to 2017—six years before the commencement of this action. Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in granting the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint as time-barred.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).