166 Archer Avenue Co. v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

166 Archer Avenue Co. v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

59 A.D.3d 357, 874 N.Y.S.2d 432

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 26, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 59 A.D.3d 357 (166 Archer Avenue Co. v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

166 Archer Avenue Co. v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp., 59 A.D.3d 357, 874 N.Y.S.2d 432 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered March 19, 2008, which granted defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the cause of action for breach of contract as untimely, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Since plaintiffs claim for construction costs accrued no later than 1994, this action commenced in 2007 was untimely (CPLR 213 [2]). Plaintiffs contention—that lease provisions conditioning plaintiffs right to payment upon substantial completion and acceptance of the work and providing that defendant “may audit” plaintiffs records to determine the reasonable amount of costs should be construed as requiring completion of an audit as a condition precedent to payment—is unsupported (see Grace Indus., Inc. v New York City Dept. of Transp., 22 AD3d 262, 263 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 703 [2006]; see generally Oppenheimer & Co. v Oppenheim, Appel, Dixon & Co., 86 NY2d 685, 691 [1995]) and cannot serve to toll the statute of limitations here. Nor is such condition imposed by the September 1997 letter from defendant’s counsel, in light of both its language and the lease’s merger clause. In view of the foregoing, plaintiff’s claimed need for discovery provided no basis to forestall summary judgment.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contention regarding the constructive rejection of its claim and find it unavailing. Concur—Saxe, J.P, Catterson, McGuire, Moskowitz and Acosta, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered March 19, 2008, which granted defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the cause of action for breach of contract as untimely, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Since plaintiffs claim for construction costs accrued no later than 1994, this action commenced in 2007 was untimely (CPLR 213 [2]). Plaintiffs contention—that lease provisions conditioning plaintiffs right to payment upon substantial completion and acceptance of the work and providing that defendant “may audit” plaintiffs records to determine the reasonable amount of costs should be construed as requiring completion of an audit as a condition precedent to payment—is unsupported (see Grace Indus., Inc. v New York City Dept. of Transp., 22 AD3d 262, 263 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 703 [2006]; see generally Oppenheimer & Co. v Oppenheim, Appel, Dixon & Co., 86 NY2d 685, 691 [1995]) and cannot serve to toll the statute of limitations here. Nor is such condition imposed by the September 1997 letter from defendant’s counsel, in light of both its language and the lease’s merger clause. In view of the foregoing, plaintiff’s claimed need for discovery provided no basis to forestall summary judgment.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contention regarding the constructive rejection of its claim and find it unavailing. Concur—Saxe, J.P, Catterson, McGuire, Moskowitz and Acosta, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 A.D.3d 357, 874 N.Y.S.2d 432, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/166-archer-avenue-co-v-new-york-city-health-hospitals-corp-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack