A.C. Legnetto Construction, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

A.C. Legnetto Construction, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Insurance

244 A.D.2d 859, 665 N.Y.S.2d 782, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12180

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

DecidedNovember 19, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 244 A.D.2d 859 (A.C. Legnetto Construction, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Insurance) 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

A.C. Legnetto Construction, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Insurance, 244 A.D.2d 859, 665 N.Y.S.2d 782, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12180 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinions

—Order affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as barred by the applicable one-year Statute of Limitations (see, State Finance Law § 137 [4] [b]). Plaintiff commenced this action seeking monies due subcontractors based on a contractor’s performance bond filed in connection with a public improvement project. Defendant contends that, because the bond does not refer to the statute, it is subject [860]*860to the six-year Statute of Limitations for breach of contract actions (see, CPLR 213 [2]). We disagree. The bond is required by section 137 (see, Dutchess Quarry & Supply Co. v Firemen’s Ins. Co., 190 AD2d 36, 38), and, in the absence of a provision in the bond extending the period of limitation, we conclude that the one-year statutory period applies (see, Scaccia Concrete Corp. v Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 212 AD2d 225).

All concur except Pine, J. P., and Callahan, J., who vote to reverse and reinstate the complaint in the following Memorandum:

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

—Order affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as barred by the applicable one-year Statute of Limitations (see, State Finance Law § 137 [4] [b]). Plaintiff commenced this action seeking monies due subcontractors based on a contractor’s performance bond filed in connection with a public improvement project. Defendant contends that, because the bond does not refer to the statute, it is subject [860]*860to the six-year Statute of Limitations for breach of contract actions (see, CPLR 213 [2]). We disagree. The bond is required by section 137 (see, Dutchess Quarry & Supply Co. v Firemen’s Ins. Co., 190 AD2d 36, 38), and, in the absence of a provision in the bond extending the period of limitation, we conclude that the one-year statutory period applies (see, Scaccia Concrete Corp. v Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 212 AD2d 225).

All concur except Pine, J. P., and Callahan, J., who vote to reverse and reinstate the complaint in the following Memorandum:

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D.2d 859, 665 N.Y.S.2d 782, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12180, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ac-legnetto-construction-inc-v-hartford-fire-insurance-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack