You are here: / / THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ONE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS...
,

THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ONE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THE CONTRACT WITH DEFENDANT SUBCONTRACTOR WAS REASONABLE BECAUSE THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE COULD BE TRIGGERED BY A PARTY OVER WHICH DEFENDANT HAD NO CONTROL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Singh, reversing Supreme Court, determined the counterclaims by defendant subcontractor, Nastasi, in this breach of a construction contract action, should not have been dismissed. The central issue was whether the one-year contractual statute of limitations was enforceable. Because the statute could be triggered by the failure of the owner to pay the plaintiff general contractor, Turner, a circumstance over which the defendant subcontractor, Nastasi, had no control, there was a question of fact whether the one-year limitations period was reasonable:

The relevant question when deciding whether a limitations period is enforceable is whether and when the damages were objectively ascertainable … . A contractual limitations period is unenforceable without a concrete determination of damages accrual … .

Here, the provisions setting a one-year limitation period for claims arising out of the contracts between Turner and Nastasi are reasonable on their face. However, the contracts also provide that payments by the owner are conditions precedent to any sums owed by Turner to Nastasi. As observed in D&S Restoration, it was neither fair nor reasonable to impose such a condition precedent, which was not within Nastasi’s control, but had the capability of nullifying its claim (D&S Restoration, 160 AD3d at 926).

… [T]he intent of the owner should not govern the interplay of the two provisions. Such a holding will unreasonably permit a party to choose to stay silent on the issue of owner payment unless it suited them, and unilaterally set the accrual date for the claim. Turner Constr. Co. v Nastasi & Assoc., Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 08024, First Dept 12-29-20

 

You might also like
IN A REAR-END COLLISION, INNOCENT PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF’S LACK OF FAULT, BUT CONFLICTING FACTS PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST ONE OR BOTH DEFENDANTS.
NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE LONG-ARM JURISDICTION OVER A BAVARIAN STEM DONOR REGISTRY INVOLVED IN DECEDENT’S PHYSICIANS’ SEARCH FOR A BONE-MARROW MATCH TO TREAT LEUKEMIA (FIRST DEPT).
NEW YORK’S BORROWING STATUTE APPLIES PURSUANT TO CONTRACTUAL CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION; UNDER THE BORROWING STATUTE, THE CANADIAN STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES AND RENDERS THE ACTION BROUGHT BY A CANADIAN PLAINTIFF UNTIMELY.
A CONDITIONAL JUDICIAL SURRENDER OF A CHILD FOR ADOPTION MUST BE REVOKED WHERE THE DESIGNATED ADOPTIVE PARENT DECLINES TO ADOPT AND THE BIRTH PARENT PROMPTLY APPLIES FOR REVOCATION OF THE JUDICIAL SURRENDER (FIRST DEPT).
THE FAILURE TO MENTION THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE ON THE VERDICT SHEET WAS NOT PRESERVED FOR APPEAL BY AN OBJECTION AND THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE APPELLATE JURISDICTION WILL NOT BE INVOKED WHERE THERE WAS AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO OBJECT (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT REQUESTED AN ATTORNEY IN NEVADA AND DID NOT WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL BEFORE HE WAS QUESTIONED IN NEW YORK, HIS STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FIRST DEPT).
Guilty Plea Based on a Sentence Promise that Neither the Court Nor the Parties Realized Was Illegal Requires Vacation of the Conviction in the Absence of Preservation—Notwithstanding the Fact the Sentence Was Ultimately Rendered Legal by an Enhancement Imposed Because the Defendant Violated the Terms of His Release Pending Sentencing
PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS IN THE ELEVATOR SHAFT WHEN THE ELEVATOR, OPERATING NORMALLY, DESCENDED AND CRUSHED HIM; THE ELEVATOR WAS NOT A “FALLING OBJECT” WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240(1); COMPLAINT DISMISSED (FIRST 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

CPLR 204(A) IN CONJUNCTION WITH RPAPL 1301(3) TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS... THE PROOF WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL AND SUMMARY...