Saddharma Cakra Buddhist Ass'n, Inc. v. Sheng Chien Chen

179 A.D.3d 728

113 N.Y.S.3d 597 (Mem)

SADDHARMA CAKRA BUDDHIST ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., appellants,

v.SHENG CHIEN CHEN, respondent.

2017-08112

Index No. 709996/16

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Argued - October 10, 2019

January 8, 2020

The Seltzer Law Group P.C., New York, N.Y. (Steven Seltzer of counsel), for appellants.

Liu & Shields LLP, Flushing, N.Y. (Carolyn Shields of counsel), for respondent.

ALAN D. SCHEINKMAN, P.J., REINALDO E. RIVERA, RUTH C. BALKIN, JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint is denied.

The plaintiff Saddharma Cakra Buddhist Association, Inc. (hereinafter SCBA), is a not-for-profit religious organization. The plaintiffs allege that SCBA is the equitable owner of certain condominium units and that its members live in those units. The plaintiffs further allege that SCBA gave money to its nominees to pay all costs associated with the units.

It is asserted that, since 1994, the defendant has held legal title to unit F5, as nominee for SCBA, which provided the down payment to buy the unit and transmitted funds to the defendant for all expenses associated with the unit. The plaintiffs Chiu Chin Chen, also known as Dafei Chen, Nancy I. Lin, and Min Hui "Laurinda" Chi (hereinafter collectively the individual plaintiffs) reside in unit F5. However, in July 2016, the defendant commenced a holdover proceeding to evict the individual plaintiffs from unit F5.

The plaintiffs commenced this action in August 2016, seeking to impose a constructive trust on behalf of SCBA and to recover damages for unjust enrichment on behalf of all the plaintiffs. The defendant moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint. The Supreme Court granted the motion, and the plaintiffs appeal.

Contrary to the Supreme Court's determination, the plaintiffs alleged facts sufficient to state a cause of action for the imposition of a constructive trust (see Sharp v. Kosmalski, 40 N.Y.2d 119, 121, 386 N.Y.S.2d 72, 351 N.E.2d 721 ; Klamar v. Marsans, 79 A.D.3d 973, 973–974, 912 N.Y.S.2d 896 ), and to recover damages for unjust enrichment (see Hernandez v. Florian, 173 A.D.3d 1144, 1146, 104 N.Y.S.3d 683 ). Moreover, the documentary evidence submitted by the defendant failed to establish a defense to the action as a matter of law (see Georgica Bldrs., Ltd. v. 136 Bishops Lane, LLC, 175 A.D.3d 610, 611, 106 N.Y.S.3d 345 ; Klamar v. Marsans, 79 A.D.3d at 974, 912 N.Y.S.2d 896 ).

Furthermore, the action was not barred by the statute of limitations. The causes of action to impose a constructive trust and to recover damages for unjust enrichment are governed by a six-year statute of limitations (see CPLR 213[1] ) that begins to run at the time of the wrongful...