From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Goco v. Ramnani

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 25, 2009
65 A.D.3d 664 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)

Opinion

No. 2008-02123.

August 25, 2009.

In an action, inter alia, to impose a constructive trust upon certain assets, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Spinola, J.), dated February 7, 2008, which, inter alia, granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as time-barred.

Kiley, Kiley Kiley, PLLC, Great Neck, N.Y. (Donald T. Kiley, Jr., and James D. Kiley of counsel), for appellant.

Spizz Cooper, LLP, Mineola, N.Y. (Harvey W. Spizz of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Spolzino, J.P., Florio, Miller and Eng, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The gravamen of the plaintiffs causes of action to impose a constructive trust and to recover damages for conversion is that the defendants mishandled funds and property owned by the decedent during the period between September 1998 to April 2000. Constructive trust and conversion claims are governed by the six-year statute of limitations of CPLR 213 (1) ( see Loengard v Santa Fe Indus., 70 NY2d 262, 267; Auffermann v Distl, 56 AD3d 502; Pisciotto v Dries, 306 AD2d 262, 263; Mazzone v Mazzone, 269 AD2d 574, 574-575; Krauss v Iliescu, 259 AD2d 468), which begins to run at the time of the wrongful conduct or event giving rise to a duty of restitution ( see Reiner v Jaeger, 50 AD3d 761; Marie Piping v Marie, 271 AD2d 507, 508; Sitkowski v Petzing, 175 AD2d 801, 802; Dybowski v Dybowska, 146 AD2d 604, 605). The Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint as time-barred, since the action was commenced October 31, 2006, more than six years after the defendants' alleged mishandling of the decedent's funds and property ( see CPLR 213; Loengard v Santa Fe Indus., 70 NY2d at 267; Mazzone v Mazzone, 269 AD2d at 574-575; cf. Marie Piping v Marie, 271 AD2d at 508).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit or improperly raised for the first time on appeal.


Summaries of

Goco v. Ramnani

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 25, 2009
65 A.D.3d 664 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
Case details for

Goco v. Ramnani

Case Details

Full title:RAUL I. GOCO, Appellant, v. MOHAN RAMNANI et al., Respondents

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Aug 25, 2009

Citations

65 A.D.3d 664 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 6313
883 N.Y.S.2d 919

Citing Cases

Seidenfeld v. Zaltz (In re Rokeach)

The statute of limitations for a proceeding pursuant to SCPA 2103 is governed by the Civil Practice Law and…

Kupfer v. Kupfer

A cause of action for a constructive trust is governed by a six-year statute of limitations. Goco v Ramnani,…