Issues of fact exist as to whether defendant fraudulently concealed its ownership interest in the subject building, and, if so, whether plaintiff was thereby induced to refrain from bringing its wrongful eviction claim against defendant in timely fashion, raised by evidence that, among other things, defendant was prohibited from filing a deed to the building by court order and that other tenants were at all relevant times making their rent checks payable to defendant. Accordingly, the motion court properly refused to estop defendant, at this juncture, from asserting the Statute of Limitations ( see, Simcuski v. Saeli, 44 N.Y.2d 442, 448-449, 454; General Stencils v. Chiappa, 18 N.Y.2d 125, 128-129). However, the Statute of Limitations defense should have been dismissed with respect to the causes of action for conversion, trespass and tortious interference with business relations, the action having been filed within the three-year limitations period applicable to such causes of action (CPLR 214, [4]), and we modify accordingly.
Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Williams, Wallach and Tom, JJ.