ANDREW W. TRIANDAFILOU v. JOHN DECK

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0916-05T50916-05T5

ANDREW W. TRIANDAFILOU,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

JOHN DECK,

Defendant-Respondent.

____________________________________________________________

 

Argued June 6, 2006 - Decided June 22, 2006

Before Judges Coburn, Collester and Reisner

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,

Law Division, Union County, L-233-05.

Edward G. Englehart argued the cause for appellant

(Sommer and Englehart, attorneys; Mr. Englehart,

on the brief).

Robert J. Kerekes argued the cause for respondent

(Mr. Kerekes, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff, Andrew W. Triandafilou, appeals from an order dismissing his complaint with prejudice. We affirm.

On January 20, 2005, plaintiff filed a complaint in the Law Division alleging that defendant, John Deck, fraudulently induced him to lend $50,000 to South Mountain Laboratories, Inc. ("SML"), by falsely and knowingly representing that the corporation was in sound financial shape when in fact it was losing money and owed the Internal Revenue Service about $575,000. The fraudulent statements were allegedly made in 1994. Deck was then an accountant for plaintiff and for the corporation as well.

In or around January 1996, the corporation defaulted on the loan. In July 1996, plaintiff signed an affidavit, stating among other things, that the corporation's attorney

stated that SML is in this financial condition "because of the way the monies were handled by John Deck." He then went on to say that "John Deck misappropriated funds, mismanaged and manipulated monies to the point of putting the [corporation] in this position. John Deck committed various acts of fraud and deception."

Plaintiff's affidavit then asserts:

I asked him what he meant by that. He replied that the monies were not going where they were supposed to go. "They can't figure out what John Deck did with all the money that came into the [corporation], but we've got him cold."

On September 19, 1996, plaintiff filed suit against the corporation. On December 17, 1996, plaintiff obtained a default judgment against the corporation. He later sued his attorney for malpractice allegedly committed in the suit, and settled the case.

The judge dismissed plaintiff's 2005 action against Deck because, among other things, it had been filed beyond the time permitted by the statute of limitations. The parties agree that the applicable statute of limitations was six years. Plaintiff contends, however, that the statute did not begin to run until he discovered the basis for his present allegation of fraud during a deposition of defendant conducted in 2003.

We disagree. Plaintiff's own certification of July 1996 shows that at that time he had sufficient information about defendant's alleged fraud to have filed suit at that time. He knew then that defendant had represented that the SML was in sound financial shape, he knew the corporation was defunct, and he had information implicating defendant as the cause of the corporation's demise. Therefore, the discovery rule provides no basis for relief from his failure to file a timely suit. See e.g., Lopez v. Swyer, 62 N.J. 267, 273 (1973); Burd v. N.J. Telephone Co., 76 N.J. 284, 291 (1978); Staub v. Eastman Kodak Co., 320 N.J. Super. 34, 45 (App. Div. 1999).

 
Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-0916-05T5

June 22, 2006