Diaz v. Gonzales

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Diaz v. Gonzales

208 A.D.2d 589, 618 N.Y.S.2d 242

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 11, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 208 A.D.2d 589 (Diaz v. Gonzales) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Diaz v. Gonzales, 208 A.D.2d 589, 618 N.Y.S.2d 242 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, for the imposition of a constructive trust, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Di Tucci, J.), dated April 28, 1993, which denied their motion to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On the record before us, we agree that the plaintiff has sufficiently set forth the elements of a cause of action for the imposition of a constructive trust (Sharp v Kosmalski, 40 NY2d 119; Delango v Delango, 203 AD2d 319; Nockelun v Sawicki, 197 AD2d 507; cf., Hira v Bajaj, 182 AD2d 435, 436; Gottlieb v Gottlieb, 166 AD2d 413). Moreover, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendants’ motion which sought to dismiss the complaint based on the statute of limitations (CPLR 213 [1]; see also, Mardiros v Ghaly, 206 AD2d 414). Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Pizzuto and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action, inter alia, for the imposition of a constructive trust, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Di Tucci, J.), dated April 28, 1993, which denied their motion to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On the record before us, we agree that the plaintiff has sufficiently set forth the elements of a cause of action for the imposition of a constructive trust (Sharp v Kosmalski, 40 NY2d 119; Delango v Delango, 203 AD2d 319; Nockelun v Sawicki, 197 AD2d 507; cf., Hira v Bajaj, 182 AD2d 435, 436; Gottlieb v Gottlieb, 166 AD2d 413). Moreover, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendants’ motion which sought to dismiss the complaint based on the statute of limitations (CPLR 213 [1]; see also, Mardiros v Ghaly, 206 AD2d 414). Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Pizzuto and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 A.D.2d 589, 618 N.Y.S.2d 242, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/diaz-v-gonzales-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack