Koenigsberg v. Columbia University: Equitable Estoppel Limits in GBL §349/350 Claims

Introduction

In Koenigsberg et al. v. Board of Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York (2d Cir. 2025), three denied applicants challenged Columbia’s reporting of data to U.S. News & World Report under New York General Business Law (GBL) §§ 349 and 350 and for unjust enrichment. They alleged that Columbia’s misrepresentations inflated its ranking, induced them to apply, and caused them to pay a non-refundable application fee. The District Court dismissed their claims as time-barred and refused to allow an amended complaint. On appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed, clarifying that under New York law:

• Equitable estoppel cannot toll the limitations period when the same alleged misrepresentation forms the basis of the substantive GBL claim;
• New York courts have not adopted a “self-concealing fraud” exception that would revive stale GBL § 349/350 claims; and
• An unjust enrichment claim that duplicates statutory or tort claims must be dismissed.

Summary of the Judgment

The Second Circuit, in a summary order, affirmed the Southern District of New York’s denial of reconsideration and post-judgment leave to amend. Central holdings:

1. GBL § 349 and § 350 claims carry a three-year limitations period that begins to run when the injured party pays the application fee—not when the deception is discovered.
2. Equitable estoppel cannot toll that period if based solely on the same misrepresentations giving rise to the claim; there must be a distinct, subsequent fraudulent act meant to conceal the original wrongdoing.
3. New York has not recognized a “self-concealing fraud” doctrine to excuse plaintiffs from timely filing GBL claims.
4. An unjust enrichment claim that mirrors statutory or tort claims is duplicative and must be dismissed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

• N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214(2) – Three-year statute of limitations for GBL §§ 349/350.
• Gaidon v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. (96 N.Y.2d 201, 2001) – Claim accrues when injury occurs, not upon discovery.
• Salvaggio v. American Express Bank (App. Div. 2015) – Payment date triggers accrual for application-fee claims.
• Zumpano v. Quinn (6 N.Y.3d 666, 2006) – Equitable estoppel prevents wrongdoers from hiding misconduct to evade limitations; requires specific subsequent acts of concealment.
• Kaufman v. Cohen (App. Div. 2003) – Misrepresentation underlying the claim cannot also serve to estop limitations absent a later fraudulent concealment.
• Ross v. Louise Wise Services (8 N.Y.3d 478, 2007) – Subsequent misrepresentation must intentionally induce delay.
• Corsello v. Verizon (18 N.Y.3d 777, 2012) – Unjust enrichment is not a catch-all; duplicative claims must be dismissed.
• Klaxon Co. v. Stentor (313 U.S. 487, 1941) – Federal courts must predict state law as it is, not as they think it should be.

Legal Reasoning

The Court applied New York’s equitable-estoppel framework, which tolls limitations only when:

1. The defendant makes a misrepresentation or conceals a fiduciary duty,
2. The plaintiff reasonably relies on that concealment, and
3. That reliance causes delay in filing suit.

Here, the alleged concealment—Columbia’s reporting to U.S. News—was identical to the wrongful act on which the GBL claims were based. Under Kaufman and Corsello, a plaintiff may not bootstrap the same misrepresentation to establish both liability and tolled limitations. Further, the circuit declined to create a new “self-concealing fraud” exception because New York’s highest courts have not done so. Finally, the Court reaffirmed that when an unjust enrichment claim merely restates statutory or tort allegations, it must be dismissed for duplication.

Impact

This decision underlines two key compliance points for litigants in New York:

• Plaintiffs must file GBL § 349/350 claims within three years of the injurious act—discovery does not delay accrual.
• Equitable estoppel will not rescue stale GBL claims unless the defendant committed a separate, subsequent fraudulent act specifically designed to conceal the original wrongdoing.

Future litigants should therefore preserve challenges to continuing or repeated misconduct through successive claims or timely amendments instead of relying on a broad tolling exception.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Accrual: The moment your legal “clock” starts—here, when you pay the fee.
• Equitable Estoppel: Courts stop wrongdoers from hiding their actions to make a late lawsuit unfair—but only if they actively tried to cover up the first deception with a new, misleading act.
• Self-Concealing Fraud: A proposed idea that some lies are hidden by nature, but New York hasn’t accepted this for GBL cases.
• Duplicative Claim: You can’t sue twice for the same facts under different legal labels; the extra claim gets thrown out.

Conclusion

Koenigsberg v. Columbia University crystallizes that, under New York law, plaintiffs cannot toll the statute of limitations on GBL § 349/350 claims by relying on the very misrepresentation they challenge. Absent a distinct, subsequent act of concealment, equitable estoppel is unavailable, and any unjust enrichment count that mirrors statutory claims must be dismissed. The decision reinforces strict limits on tolling doctrines and preserves the integrity of New York’s timely-filing requirements for consumer-fraud litigation.