Justice Shirley Kornreich

Read Full-Text Decision

The court previously ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs on the applicable statute of limitations for a New York common-law copyright infringement claim, an issue of apparent first impression. It previously held the CPLR governed the subject limitations period, not the federal statute governing claims under the federal Copyright Act. The court noted the CPLR did not specifically proscribe a statute of limitations for copyright infringement, and the six year period under CPLR 213(1), the “catch-all” provision, applied. Harrison argued §214(4), setting a three year limitations period for actions to recover damaged for injury to property, applied, likening its use of Capitol Records’ copyright as a trespass to chattel. The legislation foreclosed courts from employing the very-type of argument-by-anaology Harisson proffered. The court stated the benefit of §213(1) was clarity as courts may apply the six year period without speculating about legislative intent. Hence, where the CPLR did not provide a statute of limitations for common-law copyright infringement claims, the “most faithful reading” of the CPLR called for application of the six year period under §213(1). Thus, it denied Harrison’s cross-motion to amen to add a statute of limitations defense as it was “devoid of merit.”