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
Although the Elevator Maintenance Company May Have Been Negligent, Under “Espinal,” the Company Did Not Owe a Duty of Care to the Plaintiff—There Was No Evidence the Maintenance Company “Launched an Instrument of Harm,” the Only Available Theory of Liability (Re: Plaintiff) Which Could Have Arisen from the Maintenance Contract
THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW DOES NOT REQUIRE A TESTIMONIAL HEARING BEFORE THE REMOVAL OF A GUARDIAN FOR AN INCAPACITATED PERSON (FIRST DEPT).
Attorney’s Failure to Investigate Client’s Premises Liability Claim Before Encouraging Settlement Raised Issue of Fact About Malpractice
PLAINTIFF IN A LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) ACTION NEED NOT SUBMIT AN AFFIDAVIT TO MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE; THE HEARSAY STATEMENTS REFERENCING OR ATTRIBUTED TO PLAINTIFF DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (FIRST DEPT).
ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR TRIP AND FALL IN TREE WELL NEAR THE SIDEWALK, THE TREE WELL IS NOT UNDER THE PROPERTY OWNER’S CONTROL (FIRST DEPT).
Hearsay Evidence Can Be Considered in Opposition to Summary Judgment Motion As Long As It Is Not the Only Evidence​
APPELLATE DIVISION REDUCED DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE USING ITS PLENARY POWER, DESPITE THE FACTS THAT (1) THE SENTENCE WAS WITHIN PERMISSIBLE LIMITS, (2) THE SENTENCING COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION, AND (3) DEFENDANT HAD AN EXTENSIVE CRIMINAL HISTORY (FIRST DEPT).
FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE APPLIES TO NONSIGNATORY ATTORNEY BASED UPON ATTORNEY’S RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PARTIES, PARTIES’ FAILURE TO CAREFULLY READ THE AGREEMENTS BLAMED ON ATTORNEY’S FRAUDULENT ASSURANCES, FRAUD, FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AND BREACH OF CONTRACT ALLEGATIONS AGAINST ATTORNEY STATED CAUSES 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 © 2025 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...