You are here: / / THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS BEGAN TO RUN WHEN THE LANDLORD COULD...
, ,

THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS BEGAN TO RUN WHEN THE LANDLORD COULD HAVE DEMANDED PAYMENT PURSUANT TO THE LEASE, NOT WHEN THE DEMAND WAS ACTUALLY MADE YEARS LATER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the six-year statute of limitations for breach of contract (here, a lease) started running when a demand for payment could have been made, not when the demand was actually made:

… [A]lthough the motion court awarded the entirety of the amounts of unpaid additional rent going back to 2006, the landlord’s inexplicable delay in asserting these counterclaims until September 13, 2019 rendered the amounts that accrued before September 13, 2013 time-barred (CPLR 213[2]). The law is well settled that the statute of limitations on breach of contract claims begin to run “when the party that was owed money had the right to demand payment, not when it actually made the demand” … . Because the limitations period cannot be extended “by simply failing to make a demand” … , the judgment must be reduced to include only those amounts that accrued on or after September 13, 2013, and we remand for the calculation of the proper award and commensurate reduction in statutory interest. Abarrotes Mixteca Corp., Inc. v Brisk, 2025 NY Slip Op 00034, First Dept 1-7-25

Practice Point: For a breach of contract, the statute of limitations begins to run when the party can demand payment pursuant to the contract, not when the demand is actually made. The statute of limitations cannot be extended by failing to make a demand.

 

You might also like
MOTHER’S BOYFRIEND, WHO LIVED WITH MOTHER AND DAUGHTER FOR FIVE MONTHS BEFORE ABUSING THE DAUGHTER, MET THE CRITERIA FOR A “PERSON LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CHILD” AND WAS THEREFORE A PROPER PARTY IN THIS ABUSE/NEGLECT PROCEEDING; COMPREHENSIVE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).
SOPHISTICATED INVESTOR DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD.
DEFENDANT’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT ITSELF RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT AND WAS OTHERWISE DEFICIENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) LADDER FALL CASE; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). ​
EQUITABLE ACTION SEEKING RESCISSION BASED UPON FRAUD NEED NOT ALLEGE PECUNIARY LOSS.
PLAINTIFF BANK NEVER REVOKED THE ACCELERATION OF THE MORTGAGE DEBT; FIFTH FORECLOSURE ACTION TIME-BARRED (FIRST DEPT).
Warrantless Search of Backpack After Juvenile Was Handcuffed and Placed in a Police Car Justified by “Close Spatial and Temporal Proximity” and “Exigent Circumstances”
CPLR 7515, ENACTED IN 2018, DOES NOT APPLY RETROACTIVELY TO PROHIBIT MANDATORY ARBITRATION OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIMS (FIRST DEPT).
REQUEST FOR DNA PATERNITY TEST PROPERLY DENIED, NOT IN THE CHILD’S BEST INTEREST.

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

THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW DOES NOT CREATE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION AGAINST “ASSISTED... PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A SCAFFOLD WITHOUT GUARDRAILS; DEFENDANTS’ EVIDENCE...