From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Turecamo v. Turecamo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 28, 2008
55 A.D.3d 455 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Opinion

No. 4398.

October 28, 2008.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered July 5, 2007, which granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Michael H. Zhu, New York, for appellants.

William M. Pinzler, New York, for respondent.

Before: Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Nardelli, Buckley and Freedman, JJ.


The claim for tortious interference with contract is time-barred, having been brought more than three years after the cause of action accrued and damages were suffered (CPLR 214; see Kronos, Inc. v AVX Corp., 81 NY2d 90, 92). The transfer of stock was completed no later than 1999, after which defendant began receiving income from his ownership. The fact that the stock became more valuable with the 2005 sale of real property held by the corporation did not create a separate date of injury, but merely increased the potential damages.

Since plaintiffs never owned, possessed or controlled the stock, they could not maintain an action for its conversion ( see Soviero v Carroll Group Intl., Inc., 27 AD3d 276, 277). In any event, such a claim is untimely (CPLR 214; see Vigilant Ins. Co. of Am. v Housing Auth. of City of El Paso, Tex., 87 NY2d 36, 44).

[ See 2007 NY Slip Op 31956(U).]


Summaries of

Turecamo v. Turecamo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 28, 2008
55 A.D.3d 455 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
Case details for

Turecamo v. Turecamo

Case Details

Full title:BIRON V.L. TURECAMO et al., Appellants, v. B. DAVID TURECAMO, Respondent

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

Date published: Oct 28, 2008

Citations

55 A.D.3d 455 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 8174
866 N.Y.S.2d 637

Citing Cases

Theeheck.Com, LLC v. NEMC Fin. Servs. Grp. Inc.

This claim is governed by the three-year limitation period of CPLR 214(4). See, e.g., Turecamo v. Turecamo,…

In Matter of the Estate of Dubin

The three year period runs from the date of the conversion and not from the discovery or the exercise of…