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
VERTICALLY-STACKED SHEETS OF METAL ON A DOLLY FELL ON PLAINTIFF WHEN HE MOVED IT; THE HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL WAS NOT DE MINIMUS AND PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) FALLING-OBJECT CASE; THE FACT THAT THE DOLLY BELONGED TO ANOTHER CONTRACTOR WAS NOT DISPOSTIVE, PLAINTIFF WAS DIRECTED TO MOVE THE DOLLY AS PART OF HIS EMPLOYMENT (FIRST DEPT).
THREE-YEAR TIME LIMIT FOR STARTING EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS AFTER A COURT CHALLENGE STARTS TO RUN WHEN THE COURT OF APPEALS DISMISSES THE APPEAL FROM THE APPELLATE DIVISION DECISION.
MOVING PARTY CANNOT RELY ON GAPS IN OPPOSING PARTY’S PROOF IN MOTIONS AND CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; WITNESS-CREDIBILITY SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AT THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STAGE.
PLAINTIFF AND HIS ATTORNEY EACH SANCTIONED $5000 FOR FRIVOLOUS ACTION AND APPEAL (FIRST DEPT).
THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT CONTROL WHETHER THE COURT OR THE ARBITRATOR DETERMINES THE MATTER IS ARBITRABLE; HERE THAT DETERMINATION HAS BEEN DELEGATED TO THE ARBITRATOR BY THE CONTRACT (FIRST DEPT).
THE ZONING REGULATION WHICH REQUIRES PAYMENT TO AN “ARTS FUND” OF $100 PER SQUARE FOOT FOR CONVERSION OF “JOINT LIVING-WORK QUARTERS FOR ARTISTS” TO FULLY RESIDENTIAL USE IS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAKING (FIRST DEPT).
EVIDENCE DEFENDANT HOTEL HELD ITSELF OUT AS THE PROPERTY OWNER ON ITS WEBSITE RAISED THE POSSIBILITY OF LIABILITY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE AS THE APPARENT AGENT OF THE OWNER, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED AS PREMATURE.
NEGLIGENT HIRING, SUPERVISION, RETENTION AND TRAINING CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THE VICARIOUS LIABILITY CAUSE OF ACTION, HOWEVER, SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; IT WAS ALLEGED EMPLOYEES OF A RESIDENTIAL FACILITY BURNED A NONVERBAL, AUTISTIC RESIDENT (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...