You are here: / / THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS DEPENDS ON THE UNDERLYING...
, , , ,

THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS DEPENDS ON THE UNDERLYING THEORY, FRAUD IN THIS CASE; AN AGREEMENT TO ASSIGN OR OBTAIN A MORTGAGE IS A CONTRACT INVOLVING AN INTEREST IN REAL PROPERTY AND IS SUBJECT TO THE STATUTE-OF-FRAUDS WRITING-REQUIREMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that certain causes of action in this dispute over ownership of real property should have been dismissed as time-barred or as violative of the statute of frauds:

“Actions for declaratory judgments are not ascribed a certain limitations period. The nature of the relief sought in a declaratory judgment action dictates the applicable limitations period” … . The statute of limitations for an action based upon fraud generally is six years from the date the cause of action accrued (see CPLR 213[8]). … [T]he first and second causes of action were untimely, as the amended complaint alleged that [defendant’s] fraud in obtaining those interests occurred more than six years before the commencement of this action … .

… Causes of action to impose a constructive trust upon real property and to recover damages for unjust enrichment are governed by a six-year statute of limitations, which begins to accrue at the time of the wrongful act giving rise to the duty of restitution … . … [Defendant’s] alleged fraudulent acquisition of ownership interests … occurred more than six years before the commencement of this action.

… The statute of frauds requires any contract transferring or creating an interest in real property to be in writing (see General Obligations Law § 5-703[1] …). Here, [the] … complaint alleged [defendants] breached their agreements to assign or obtain a mortgage in favor of the plaintiffs. A mortgage constitutes an interest in real property, and the agreements to transfer or obtain mortgages in favor of the plaintiffs, therefore, were required to be in writing. Hersko v Hersko, 2026 NY Slip Op 00120, Second Dept 1-14-26

Practice Point: The statute of limitations for a declaratory judgment is that which applies to the underlying theory. Here the six-year statute for fraud applied.​

Practice Point: An agreement to assign or obtain a mortgage is subject to the statute-of-frauds because a mortgage constitutes an interest in real property.

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF HUSBAND IN THIS DIVORCE ACTION INSTALLED SPYWARE WHICH INTERCEPTED DEFENDANT WIFE’S PHONE CALLS AND THEN DESTROYED THE CONTENTS OF THE INTERCEPTION; THE INTERCEPTION VIOLATED DEFENDANT WIFE’S ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE; SANCTIONS FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE PROPERLY INCLUDED STRIKING THE CAUSES OF ACTION FOR SPOUSAL SUPPORT, EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION AND ATTORNEY’S FEES (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, A PATIENT IN DEFENDANT REHAB FACILITY, FELL WHEN WALKING UNATTENDED BACK TO HIS BED FROM THE BATHROOM; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BED ALARM WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE; THAT CAUSE OF ACTION SOUNDED IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT NEGLIGENCE; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT EXPERT EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION (WHICH WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REQUIRED IF THE CAUSE OF ACTION SOUNDED IN NEGLIGENCE, AS THE MOTION COURT HAD HELD) (SECOND DEPT).
​ PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO PROVIDE DISCOVERY AND A BILL OF PARTICULARS WARRANTED DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT AS A SANCTION (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT CORPORATION WAS NOT SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT, THE CORPORATE DEFENDANT “APPEARED INFORMALLY” THROUGH THE CEO’S AFFIDAVIT; PLAINTIFFS WERE ENTITLED TO A DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST THE CORPORATION (SECOND DEPT). ​
Breach of Covenant of Good Faith (Settlement) Can Give Rise to Consequential Damages (Loss of Earnings) Even Where Policy Excludes Loss of Earnings with Respect to the Events Covered by the Policy
Driver Stalled in Moving Lane of Traffic Not Negligent Re: Rear-End Collision
BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS UNABLE TO SHOW THE DOCUMENTS SOUGHT FROM THE DEFENDANTS EVER EXISTED HE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO STRIKE THE ANSWER FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE, HOWEVER PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO AN ORDER PRECLUDING THE DEFENDANTS FROM INTRODUCING ANY SUCH DOCUMENTS AT TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT PROVE DEFENDANT OWNER OF DEFENDANT CORPORATION WAS PROPERLY SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT BY SUBSTITUTE SERVICE; EVEN PROPER SUBSTITUTE SERVICE WOULD NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO ACQUIRE PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER A CORPORATION (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE INCIDENT IN WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY BROKEN GLASS IN A DOOR WAS CAPTURED... DISAGREEING WITH THE THIRD DEPARTMENT, THE SECOND DEPARTMENT HELD THAT THE “DISMISSAL...