Dominguez v. Morris

77 A.D.3d 884, 909 N.Y.S.2d 383

This text of 77 A.D.3d 884 (Dominguez v. Morris) 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
Dominguez v. Morris, 77 A.D.3d 884, 909 N.Y.S.2d 383 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to impose a constructive trust on certain real property and to cancel a deed, the defendant Diana Morris appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Markey, J.), dated March 12, 2009, as denied those branches of her cross motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her as time-barred.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

After the father of the plaintiff and the appellant died, the plaintiff commenced this action, inter alia, to impose a constructive trust based on the appellant’s alleged failure to honor her promise to the father regarding the equal distribution of [885]*885proceeds of any sale of the subject property among the sisters after its conveyance. Since that alleged breach of a promise occurred less than six years before the plaintiff commenced this action, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the appellant’s cross motion which was to dismiss the complaint as time-barred (see CPLR 213 [1]; Loengard v Santa Fe Indus., 70 NY2d 262, 267 [1987]; Zane v Minion, 63 AD3d 1151, 1153-1154 [2009]; Panish v Panish, 24 AD3d 642, 643 [2005]). Moreover, contrary to the appellant’s contention, the doctrine of res judicata is inapplicable because there is no identity between the parties in a prior action to impose a constructive trust and the present action (see City of New York v Welsbach Elec. Corp., 9 NY3d 124, 127 [2007]; Vigliotti v North Shore Univ. Hosp., 24 AD3d 752, 753-754 [2005]; compare Pawling Lake Prop. Owners Assn., Inc. v Greiner, 72 AD3d 665 [2010]). Dillon, J.P., Florio, Balkin and Roman, JJ., concur.

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

Related

City of New York v. Welsbach Electric Corp.
878 N.E.2d 966 (New York Court of Appeals, 2007)
Loengard v. Santa Fe Industries, Inc.
514 N.E.2d 113 (New York Court of Appeals, 1987)
Panish v. Panish
24 A.D.3d 642 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Vigliotti v. North Shore University Hospital
24 A.D.3d 752 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Zane v. Minion
63 A.D.3d 1151 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Pawling Lake Property Owners Ass'n v. Greiner
72 A.D.3d 665 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
77 A.D.3d 884, 909 N.Y.S.2d 383, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dominguez-v-morris-nyappdiv-2010.