Armenia v. Carini

174 A.D.2d 1040
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 7, 1991·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Supreme Court should have granted the motion of defendants to dismiss the complaint as barred by the Statute of Limitations. More than 14 years elapsed between the construction of the building designed by defendants and the commencement of the action based upon negligent design. "It is well settled that an owner’s claim against an architect arising out of alleged defective construction of a building, however denominated, accrues for purposes of the Statute of Limitations upon completion of the construction” (Farash Constr. Corp. v Stanndco Developers, 139 AD2d 899, 900, lv dismissed 73 NY2d 918; see also, Phillips Constr. Co. v City of New York, 61 NY2d 949; State of New York v Lundin, 60 NY2d 987; Sears, Roebuck & Co. v Enco Assocs., 43 NY2d 389). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Ostrowski, J.—Dismiss Complaint.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Boomer, Balio and Lowery, JJ.

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

Armenia v. Carini, 174 A.D.2d 1040 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

174 A.D.2d 1040 (Armenia v. Carini) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lopez v. Pathmark Supermarket, Inc.
229 A.D.2d 566 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Harbour Points Village Homeowners Ass'n v. Marrano/Marc Equity Joint Venture
185 A.D.2d 648 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)