Maric Piping, Inc. v. Maric
| Decision Date | 10 April 2000 |
| Citation | 705 N.Y.S.2d 684,271 A.D.2d 507 |
| Parties | MARIC PIPING, INC., et al., Appellants,<BR>v.<BR>RAJKO MARIC et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Altman, J. P., Florio, H. Miller and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.
This action arises from a business relationship between the plaintiff Frank Maric and the defendant Rajko Maric, who are brothers. Frank and Rajko ran a company known as Maric Piping, Inc. (hereinafter MPI), and purchased numerous properties. When difficulties arose between the brothers, they dissolved MPI. Thereafter, there were disputes as to the ownership and distribution of some of the properties. Frank commenced this action seeking an accounting of the assets, and to impose a constructive trust on, inter alia, certain real property in East Lyme, Connecticut, purchased in 1981 by Rajko, allegedly on behalf of both brothers.
The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the cause of action to impose a constructive trust is time-barred, and the complaint otherwise failed to state a cause of action with respect to the causes of action to impose a constructive trust and for an accounting.
It is well settled that on a motion to dismiss a pleading for failure to state a cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), the pleading is to be liberally construed, accepting all of the facts alleged therein to be true, and according the allegations the benefit of every possible favorable inference (see, Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87). The complaint states causes of action both for an accounting and the imposition of a constructive trust based on allegations of the existence of a joint enterprise giving rise to a fiduciary duty that was allegedly breached by Rajko.
The Supreme Court also erred in dismissing the claim seeking to impose a constructive trust as barred by the Statute of Limitations. The equitable claim for the imposition of a constructive trust is governed by the six-year Statute of Limitations of CPLR 213 (1) (see, 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, Dybowski v Dybowska, 146 AD2d 604; Kitchner v Kitchner, 100 AD2d 954). As this Court explained in Sitkowski v Petzing (175 AD2d 801, 802): "A determination of when the wrongful act triggering the running of the Statute of Limitations occurs depends upon whether the constructive truste...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dist. Attorney of N.Y. Cnty. v. Republic of the Phil.
...adversely from the date the trustee breaches or repudiates the agreement to transfer the property[.] Maric Piping, Inc. v. Maric , 271 A.D.2d 507, 705 N.Y.S.2d 684, 685 (2d Dep't 2000) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In other words, the demand-and-refusal rule only applies ......
-
Pfohl Brothers Landfill Site v. Allied Waste Sys.
...v. Unanue, 233 F.3d 38, 46 (1st Cir.2000) (considering constructive trust under New York law and citing Marie Piping, Inc. v. Marie, 271 A.D.2d 507, 705 N.Y.S.2d 684, 685 (2000)). In the instant case, Laidlaw was required to hold the $ 2.8 million dividend distributions in trust for use in ......
-
Genger v. Genger (In re Orly Genger)
... ... BROSER, ERIC HERSCHMANN, THE GENGER LITIGATION TRUST, ADBG LLC, TEDCO INC., and DEBORAH PIAZZA as Chapter 7 Trustee, Defendants. No. 19-13895-JLG ... (2d Dep't 2012) (citing Maric Piping Inc. v ... Maric , 271 A.D.2d 507, 508 (2d Dep't 2000) ... ...
-
In re Fischer
...period begins to run upon the fiduciary's repudiation of his obligation to administer the estate); Maric Piping, Inc. v. Maric, 271 A.D.2d 507, 508, 705 N.Y.S.2d 684, 685 (2d Dep't 2000) (in an action seeking to impose a constructive trust on property purchased by plaintiff's brother, alleg......