In Saphir Intl., SA v. UBS Painewebber Inc., 25 AD3d 315 [1st Dept 2006]) the Appellate Division, First Department held that "competing factual contentions preclude summary resolution of the statute of limitations issue" (id.). Petitioner-plaintiff, a Panama investment company, said it filed its fraud claim as soon as it learned that the respondent-defendants had participated in a stock fraud scheme (id.). Respondent-defendants contended plaintiff was on notice from the date plaintiff learned it had lost most of its investment (id.). Reversing the lower court's grant of summary judgment for respondent-defendants, the First Department noted multiple fact questions answered in favor of the non-movant plaintiff, including: (1) whether the plaintiff's losses were sufficient to put the plaintiff on notice of fraud; (2) whether plaintiff knew of certain statements attributable to the respondent-defendants' co-defendant; (3) if plaintiff did know of those statements, whether plaintiffs owner should have known the statements were false; and (4) if charged with that knowledge, should the false statements have put plaintiff's owner on notice that respondent-defendants were also involved in the fraud (id. at 317). The Appellate Division found the trial court had improperly summarily resolved these fact questions against the non-movant plaintiff and, accordingly, reversed the grant of summary judgment so the competing factual contentions could be determined by a trier-of-fact.