| Close-Barzin v Christie's, Inc. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 04196 [51 AD3d 444] |
| May 6, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Eleanor Close-Barzin, by Antal P. de Bekessy, Her LegalAdministrator, Appellant, v Christie's, Inc., et al., Respondents, et al.,Defendant. |
—[*1] Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP, New York (Michael E. Salzman of counsel), forrespondents.
Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered June21, 2006, which granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint and denied plaintiff's crossmotion to consolidate, deemed to be an appeal from judgment, same court and Justice, enteredJune 27, 2006 (CPLR 5501 [c]), and, so considered, said judgment unanimously affirmed, withcosts.
Plaintiff's conversion claim is time-barred, since she alleges bad faith and the action wascommenced more than three years after the alleged taking of the property occurred (seeCPLR 214 [3]; Solomon R. Guggenheim Found. v Lubell, 77 NY2d 311, 317-318[1991]; Davidson v Fasanella, 269 AD2d 351 [2000]; Matter of Spewack, 203AD2d 133 [1994]). Given plaintiff's allegation that defendants knowingly consigned and sold herproperty, a demand and refusal was not a prerequisite to commencement of an action forconversion (see Lubell, 77 NY2d at 318), and plaintiff's reliance on CPLR 206 ismisplaced (see LeFebvre v New York Life Ins. & Annuity Corp., 214 AD2d 911, 913[1995]).
Defendants are not barred by the doctrine of equitable estoppel from asserting the statute oflimitations defense (see General Stencils v Chiappa, 18 NY2d 125, 128 [1966]; Pahlad v Brustman, 33 AD3d 518,519-520 [2006], affd 8 NY3d 901 [2007]). Contrary to plaintiff's argument that she wasaffirmatively induced by defendants to refrain from pursuing her claims, the allegations of hercomplaint demonstrate that she had all the information necessary to commence an action forconversion well within the limitations period.
Plaintiff's allegation that defendants knowingly ignored well known facts fails to state acause of action for fraud (see Friedmanv Anderson, 23 AD3d 163, 166 [2005]). Nor do her allegations state a cause of actionfor fraudulent conspiracy (see LeFebvre, 214 AD2d at 913).[*2]
We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments andfind them unavailing. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Saxe, Buckley and Acosta, JJ.