The plaintiff alleged both actual and constructive fraud. He defendants’ primary contention is that the causes of action accrued on May 12, 2003, when the quitclaim deed was executed, and therefore, the commencement of the action on July 1, 2010, over seven years later, was untimely…A defendant who seeks dismissal of a complaint on the ground that it is barred by the statute of limitations bears the initial burden of demonstrating, prima facie, that the time in which to commence the action has expired”… The order appealed from denied motion and granted cross motion. ![]() The plaintiff opposed the motion based, inter alia, upon his affidavit, and cross-moved to preliminarily enjoin the defendants from transferring, conveying, mortgaging, or otherwise encumbering the subject property. In support of the motion, the defendant Denise Grushin submitted an affidavit stating that the plaintiff executed the quitclaim deed to avoid foreclosure by a third-party mortgage creditor, and, thereafter, continued to collect $400,000 in rents from the premises, which he kept. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a), arguing, inter alia, that the action was time-barred. His amended verified complaint asserted causes of action to quiet title pursuant to RPAPL article 15, for a judgment declaring that the 2003 quitclaim deed, the 2006 deed, and the 2006 mortgage were null and void, a declaration that he owned the subject property, to recover damages for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, money had and received, and unjust enrichment, and to impose a constructive trust on the property. The plaintiff commenced the instant action on July 1, 2010. The defendant Denise Grushin suggested that her husband, the defendant Corey Grushin, handle the transaction, because he was a “real estate professional.” The plaintiff alleges that when he executed the mortgage documents refinancing the property, he was not represented by counsel, and the “defendants slipped a quitclaim deed into the stack of numerous papers which defendants asked plaintiff to sign in connection with the 2003 efinance ransaction.” Although that deed, dated May 12, 2003, placed the property in the sole name of the defendant Denise Grushin, the plaintiff alleges that his intent was not to convey the property, but rather, to refinance the mortgage. According to the plaintiff, in 2003, he needed money for medical expenses and decided to refinance the mortgage on the subject property to acquire those funds. He plaintiff alleges that on May 29, 1992, he and his sister, the defendant Denise Grushin, acquired title to the subject real property where the plaintiff resided using only the plaintiff’s funds. The Appellate Division outlined the facts: ![]() March 11, 2015) arose out of a proceeding “ to quiet title pursuant RPAPL article 15, to declare two deeds and a mortgage null and void, to recover damages for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, money had and received, and unjust enrichment, and to impose a constructive trust” ![]() ![]() On an almost daily basis, our Courts publish decisions that demonstrate the broad panoply of disputes that are prosecuted under the RPAPL Article 15 “umbrella”. Article 15 of the New York Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law provides that: “Where a person claims an estate or interest in real property…such person… may maintain an action against any other person, known or unknown… to compel a determination of any claim adverse to that of plaintiff which the defendant makes”
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |