—[*1] Morrison Cohen LLP, New York City (Malcolm I. Lewin of counsel), for appellant.

Liddle & Robinson, LLP, New York City (Blaine H. Bortnick of counsel), for respondent-appellant.

Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, New York City (C. Evan Stewart of counsel), for respondent.

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 a cause 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 for fraud, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered June 5, 2005 unanimously dismissed, without costs, as superseded by the appeal from the February 1, 2007 order.

The motion court correctly applied an actual knowledge standard in deciding that plaintiff's allegations are insufficient to state a cause of action against defendant-respondent for aiding and abetting 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 Morgan Chase 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 argument that the documentary evidence conclusively establishes that plaintiff's assignor was aware of the alleged fraud more than three years prior to institution of the action, and that the action is therefore [*2]barred by California's statute of limitations. We have considered the parties' other arguments for affirmative relief and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Buckley and Catterson, JJ.