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
Charging an Additional 10% Contingency Fee for the Appeal, On Top of the 33 1/3% Contingency Fee for the Trial, for a Total Contingency Fee of 43 1/3 %, Was Proper—Motion Court Did Not Have the Power to Alter the Fee Agreement Sua Sponte and the Motion Court No Longer Had Jurisdiction Over the Case When It Made the Alteration
PLAINTIFF, PURSUANT TO THE CONDOMINIUM DECLARATION AND OFFERING PLAN, WAS THE OWNER OF THE BASEMENT SPACE USED BY DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ITS TRESPASS ACTION, BECAUSE THE DECLARATION AND OFFERING PLAN, AND THE REFERENCE TO IT IN THE DEEDS, WERE UNAMBIGUOUS, PAROL AGREEMENTS TRANSFERRING OWNERSHIP OF THE AREA TO DEFENDANTS WERE NOT ENFORCEABLE (FIRST DEPT).
Injury While Lowering a Heavy Tank Entitled Plaintiff to Summary Judgment on His Labor Law 240 (1) Claim—Party’s Cross Motion Should Not Have Been Denied for Failure to Attach Pleadings—the Pleadings Had Been Provided to the Court by Other Parties
NO PROOF NOTE WAS IN POSSESSION OF PLAINTIFF WHEN THE ACTION WAS COMMENCED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
UNLOADING A HEAVY AIR CONDITIONING COIL FROM A TRUCK IS AN ACTIVITY COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FIRST DEPT).
Severity of Injuries Compared With the Absence of a Damages Award for Past and Future Economic and Non-Economic Loss Indicates an “Impermissible Compromise Verdict” Was Reached—New Trial on Liability and Damages Properly Ordered
Judge’s Failure to Follow Statutory Requirements for Handling Jury Questions Required Reversal.
HEARSAY STATEMENTS OF THE ALLEGED VICTIM WERE NOT CORROBORATED, NEGLECT FINDING REVERSED (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...