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
NEW YORK COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION OVER A NEW JERSEY RADIOLOGIST IN THIS MISDIAGNOSIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION PURSUANT TO TWO PROVISIONS OF CPLR 302(a) (FIRST DEPT).
THE PROBATION-CONDITION REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO PAY THE MANDATORY SURCHARGE AND COURT FEES WAS STRUCK BECAUSE DEFENDANT IS INDIGENT; THE FACIAL CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES TO PROBATION CONDITIONS WERE NOT PRESERVED (FIRST DEPT).
THE CONTRACTOR WHICH UNDERTOOK THE DUTY TO INSTALL FLOORING WAS REQUIRED TO PERFORM THAT DUTY WITH REASONABLE CARE; THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY HAD A SEPARATE NONDELEGABLE DUTY TO KEEP THE PROPERTY SAFE WHICH MAY ALLOW THE CONTRACTOR’S NEGLIGENCE TO BE IMPUTED TO THE OWNER; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
LATE FEES IMPOSED BY THE LANDLORD MAY CONSTITUTE USURIOUS INTEREST; APPEAL HEARD DESPITE PRO SE DEFENDANT-TENANT’S FAILURE TO PERFECT THE APPEAL; THE APPEAL RAISED A PURELY LEGAL ISSUE WHICH IS DETERMINATIVE (FIRST DEPT).
IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE, WHETHER DEFENDANT REGISTERED NURSE AND DEFENDANT PHYSICIAN’S ASSISTANT GAVE PLAINTIFF THE APPROPRIATE DISCHARGE INSTRUCTIONS AFTER DISOVERING A LUMP IN PLAINTIFF’S BREAST CREATED A QUESTION OF FACT; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE DOCTOR WHO COSIGNED THE PHYSICIAN ASSISTANT’S CHART SHOULD HAVE REVIEWED THE CHART (FIRST DEPT).
The Meaning of “Manifest Intent” in the Context of a Fidelity Bond Insuring the Employer Against Dishonest Acts by an Employee Explained
Family Court Should Not Have Denied Father’s Request for Son’s Mental Health Records Without an In Camera Review
A HEAVY PUMP, 3 TO 4 FEET IN HEIGHT, WHICH WAS LEANING AGAINST THE WALL, TIPPED OVER AND STRUCK THE PLAINTIFF; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (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...