Opinion
06-21-2016
CASTLESTONE MANAGEMENT LLC, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Leon DIAMOND, Defendant–Appellant.
Herrick, Feinstein LLP, New York (Mara B. Levin of counsel), for appellant. Littler Mendelson P.C., New York (A. Michael Weber of counsel), for respondent.
Herrick, Feinstein LLP, New York (Mara B. Levin of counsel), for appellant.
Littler Mendelson P.C., New York (A. Michael Weber of counsel), for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barry R. Ostrager, J.), entered December 10, 2015, which denied defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint.
Plaintiff seeks reimbursement, pursuant to an oral agreement with defendant, of sums it paid to settle claims brought against it by another former employee based on allegations of discrimination and harassment by defendant. Plaintiff acquired the legal right to demand reimbursement from defendant when it made the payment to the other employee (see Hahn Automotive Warehouse, Inc. v. American Zurich Ins. Co., 18 N.Y.3d 765, 770–771, 944 N.Y.S.2d 742, 967 N.E.2d 1187 [2012] ). Since it did not file the complaint until more than six years after making that payment, its claims are time-barred (see CPLR 213[1], [2] ; Maya NY, LLC v. Hagler, 106 A.D.3d 583, 585, 965 N.Y.S.2d 475 [1st Dept.2013] ).
Plaintiff argues that, because the agreement did not specify a time for performance, defendant's reimbursement payment was due, and the statute of limitations began to run, not when the settlement payment was made but within a reasonable time thereafter (see e.g. Savasta v. 470 Newport Assoc., 82 N.Y.2d 763, 603 N.Y.S.2d 821, 623 N.E.2d 1171 [1993] ). However, the law does not imply a reasonable time for performance where the sole contractual obligation is to make a monetary payment (see Pine v. Okoniewski, 256 A.D. 519, 521, 11 N.Y.S.2d 13 [4th Dept.1939] ; Schmidt v. McKay, 555 F.2d 30, 35 [2d Cir.1977] ). Defendant's monetary reimbursement obligation became due as soon as plaintiff's settlement payment was made (see Bradford, Eldred & Cuba R.R. Co. v. New York, Lake Erie & W.R.R. Co., 123 N.Y. 316, 326, 25 N.E. 499 [1890] ; Vitale v. Giaimo, 103 A.D.3d 835, 838, 960 N.Y.S.2d 161 [2d Dept.2013] ). Plaintiff's alternative argument that defendant was not obligated to repay it until after he resigned in 2010 is inconsistent with the allegations in the complaint concerning the terms of the oral agreement.
MAZZARELLI, J.P., ANDRIAS, SAXE, GISCHE, KAHN, JJ., concur.