You are here: / / PLAINTIFF’S ACTION WAS NOT TIME-BARRED BECAUSE THE SIX-MONTH LIMITATION...
, ,

PLAINTIFF’S ACTION WAS NOT TIME-BARRED BECAUSE THE SIX-MONTH LIMITATION PERIOD IN THE SUBCONTRACT EXPIRED BEFORE SUIT COULD BE BROUGHT; THE TERMS OF THE ONE-YEAR LIMITATION PERIOD IN THE LABOR AND MATERIAL BOND CONFLICTED WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATE FINANCE LAW; THE STATE FINANCE LAW CONTROLS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff-subcontractor’s breach of contract action against the general contractor and the insurance company (Liberty Mutual) which issued the labor and material payment bond for the construction work should not have been dismissed, and plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on its action against the general contractor. The Third Department held that the six-month statute of limitations in the subcontract and the one-year statute of limitations in the bond did not render the actions time-barred:

“A ‘limitation period’ that expires before suit can be brought is not really a limitation period at all, but simply a nullification of the claim” … . The conflict in the subcontractor agreement between the limitation period and the payment provisions had the effect of nullifying plaintiff’s breach of contract claim; thus, the six-month limitation period is unreasonable and unenforceable, and Supreme Court should not have dismissed plaintiff’s complaint as time-barred … . * * *

State Finance Law § 137 (4) (b) sets forth a later accrual date than the payment bond, providing that “no action on a payment bond furnished pursuant to [State Finance Law § 137] shall be commenced after the expiration of one year from the date on which the public improvement has been completed and accepted by the public owner” (emphasis added). The provisions of State Finance Law § 137 govern bonds furnished pursuant to that statute, and, although parties may agree to expand the statute’s protections, they may not limit them … . As the accrual date set forth in the first part of the contractual limitation provision conflicts with State Finance Law § 137 (4) (b), the second part of the provision must be given effect, and the bond agreement must be deemed to be amended to provide for the accrual date set forth in the statute … . The record does not reveal the date on which the project was accepted … for this purpose. Accordingly, there are issues of fact as to when plaintiff’s cause of action against Liberty Mutual accrued and whether it is time-barred, and summary judgment dismissing the complaint against Liberty should not have been granted … . Digesare Mech., Inc. v U.W. Marx, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 07668, Third Dept 10-24-19

 

You might also like
OFFICE OF MENTAL RETARDATION AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES (OMRDD) WAS IMMUNE FROM A NEGLIGENCE SUIT ALLEGING ABUSE OF A DISABLED RESIDENT WHILE IN THE CARE OF A COMPANY CERTIFIED BY THE OMRDD.
CLAIMANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO PROVIDE AN UNLIMITED MEDICAL RELEASE AS OPPOSED TO A LIMITED RELEASE CONCERNING ONLY THOSE AREAS OF HIS BODY AT ISSUE IN THE CLAIM FOR BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).
HERE THE APPELLATE COURT SEVERED PORTIONS OF THE SEARCH WARRANT AS OVERBROAD; THE VALID PORTIONS AUTHORIZED A SEARCH OF THE PHONE FOR EVIDENCE OF CHILD ABUSE; THE SEARCH OF THE PHONE AS AUTHORIZED BY THE VALID PORTIONS OF THE WARRANT TURNED UP A VIDEO OF A RAPE; THAT VIDEO WAS PROPERLY SEIZED PURSUANT TO THE PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE (THIRD DEPT).
PERSONS WHO SIGNED A DESIGNATING PETITION WHICH WAS DEEMED NULL AND VOID COULD VALIDLY SIGN A SUBSEQUENT OPPORTUNITY TO BALLOT PETITION (THIRD DEPT).
NEWSPAPER CARRIER WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO BENEFITS.
ONCE A STIPULATION OF DISCONTINUANCE WAS FILED SUPREME COURT LACKED ANY SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE PROCEEDING AND THE MOTION PRACTICE SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE SETTLEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED ON THAT GROUND; A PLENARY ACTION WAS REQUIRED (THIRD DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF SUED YANKEE TRAILS FIVE DAYS BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RAN IN THIS BUS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE; THE OWNER OF THE BUS WAS ACTUALLY YANKEE TRAILS WORLD TOURS, A COMPANY WITH A DIFFERENT ADDRESS AND CEO; PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO EXTEND THE TIME TO SERVE THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT AND TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO SUBSTITUTE THE CORRECT DEFENDANT, MADE AFTER THE STATUTE HAD RUN, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).
PROOF THAT CLAIMANT’S PROSTATE CANCER WAS CAUSED BY TOXINS TO WHICH CLAIMANT WAS EXPOSED AS A FIREFIGHTER WAS SPECULATIVE, CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (THIRD 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

DEFENDANT HAD A RIGHT TO BE PRESENT WHEN THE PROSECUTOR SUCCESSFULLY ARGUED... PLAINTIFF DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CONTEST THE TOWN’S NEGATIVE DECLARATION...