FRAUD CLAIM AGAINST ROMANTIC PARTNER WAS TIME-BARRED
Back in 2011, A.K. signed a deed conveying certain to Z.S., a person with whom he was reportedly in a romantic relationship. Apparently, Z.S. loaned him $200,000 and purportedly promised that she would not record the deed; that it was only going to serve as security for the loan.
It appears, however, that the deed was recorded with the City back in March of 2011, and it wasn't until December 2020, some 9 years later, that A.K. filed a case with the Kings County Supreme Court seeking to annul the conveyance (and to recover damages) based on “fraud.”
When Z.S. later sought the case’s dismissal, the judge granted the request, and an appeal followed.
On its review of the record, the Appellate Division, Second Department, noted that, given the significant lapse of time, A.K. was unable to explain why the dispute wasn’t time-barred; precluded by the governing statute of limitations – which is typically two years after recordation of the disputed deed and more than six years after the alleged fraudulently induced conveyance.
As he failed to “raise a question of fact as to whether the statute of limitations was tolled or otherwise inapplicable, or whether he actually commenced the action within the applicable limitations period,” the underlying dismissal was left undisturbed.
That man was surely judged by his deed ....
# # #
DECISION