Background
Plaintiff Qi filed a summons with notice on March 2, 2022, asserting Labor Law wage claims against Famous Sichuan N.Y. Inc. and affiliated defendants. Under CPLR 213(6) and Labor Law §198(3), the applicable statute of limitations for wage claims is six years — meaning claims predating March 2, 2016 would ordinarily be time-barred. Defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the pre-March 2, 2016 claims as time-barred, shifting the burden to plaintiff to show a toll or exception.
Plaintiff had not raised the COVID-19 Executive Orders as a potential toll when opposing the cross-motion. New York’s COVID-19 Executive Orders, in effect from March 2020 to November 3, 2020, tolled various limitations periods; the Second and Third Departments had already held that those orders tolled applicable statutes of limitations (Brash v. Richards; Matter of Roach v. Cornell Univ.), and the First Department itself had confirmed in Murphy v. Harris (210 AD3d 410 [1st Dept 2022]) that the plain text of the initial Executive Order used the word “toll.” After the cross-motion was decided against him, plaintiff moved to renew, arguing that Murphy “clarified” the law and constituted new law under CPLR 2221(e)(2). Supreme Court denied renewal. The First Department unanimously affirmed.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that the denial of renewal was proper because plaintiff’s motion was functionally a motion to reargue, not a genuine renewal motion. CPLR 2221(e)(2) permits renewal based on “new facts not offered on the prior motion” or “a change in the law that would change the prior determination.” Plaintiff admitted he had known about the COVID-19 Executive Orders and about the Second and Third Department decisions applying them as tolls. Murphy v. Harris did not change the law or clarify an unsettled question — the law was already settled when the original motion was decided (at least in other departments), and the First Department’s confirmation of what the Executive Orders plainly said was not a “clarification” that justified reopening a motion where the argument was knowingly abandoned.
When a party is aware of a legal argument, knows that sister departments have already accepted it, and nonetheless fails to raise it in the original motion — only to argue later that a subsequent court decision “clarified” the issue — the motion to renew becomes a vehicle for reargument, and no appeal lies from the denial of a motion to reargue. The court dismissed plaintiff’s remaining arguments as unavailing.
Key Takeaways
- A motion to renew under CPLR 2221(e)(2) cannot be used to raise a legal argument that was known and available at the time of the original motion — doing so converts the renewal motion into an improper reargument, from which no appeal lies when denied.
- The COVID-19 Executive Order tolls of the statute of limitations (roughly March 2020 through November 3, 2020) are established First Department law after Murphy v. Harris — wage-claim plaintiffs who failed to raise the toll in their original opposition to limitations motions cannot raise it later through a renewal motion.
- In Labor Law wage claims with a six-year limitations period, counsel must assess the COVID toll at the outset and raise it affirmatively in any opposition to a limitations-based cross-motion — the approximate 245-day toll period can be decisive for claims that straddle the March 2, 2016 cutoff.
Why It Matters
This decision is a sharp reminder that procedural vigilance is essential in Labor Law wage litigation. The six-year statute of limitations under CPLR 213(6) and Labor Law §198(3) governs most wage claims in New York, and the COVID-19 Executive Order toll — which could extend that period by approximately 245 days — must be raised proactively. Courts will not permit plaintiffs to hold that argument in reserve and deploy it via renewal after losing a limitations motion, even if a subsequent appellate decision “confirms” what the law was.
For plaintiffs’ employment counsel, this means including the COVID toll analysis in every opposition to a pre-2022 limitations cross-motion, regardless of whether the First Department had yet issued a controlling decision at the time of filing. For defense counsel handling pre-2022 wage claims, this decision illustrates the importance of locking down the plaintiff’s failure to raise the toll argument in the original motion papers — making any subsequent renewal effort vulnerable to dismissal as improper reargument.