N. R. S. Construction Corp. v. Board of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

N. R. S. Construction Corp. v. Board of Education

82 A.D.2d 876, 440 N.Y.S.2d 318, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14574

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

DecidedJune 22, 1981

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 82 A.D.2d 876 (N. R. S. Construction Corp. v. Board of Education) 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

N. R. S. Construction Corp. v. Board of Education, 82 A.D.2d 876, 440 N.Y.S.2d 318, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14574 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by defendant Board of Education, Central School District, No. 2, Towns of Yorktown, New Castle and Cortlandt from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Slifkin, J.), dated November 23, 1979, which granted the motion of the additional defendant Emilio John Di Rienzo for summary judgment dismissing its third counterclaim insofar as asserted against him. Order reversed, with $50 costs and disbursements, and motion denied. The counterclaim in question asserts a cause of action to recover against an architect for breach of contract or for professional malpractice. Under either theory the board’s claim accrued on the date of completion of the project which was the subject of the architectural contract between the parties and the consequent termination of their professional relationship thereunder (Sosnow v Paul, 36 NY2d 780). In Sears, Roebuck & Co. v Eneo Assoc. (43 NY2d 389, 395) it was held that “claims by owners against architects arising out of the performance or nonperformance of obligations under contracts between them are governed by the six-year contract Statute of Limitations (CPLR 213, subd 2), except with respect to the issue of damages” (see, also, [877]*877Matter of Paver & Wildfoerster [Catholic High School Assn.], 38 NY2d 669). This record presents a vigorously disputed question of fact as to whether the board’s claim against the architect was interposed within six years of the date of completion of the project, the board contending that although begun in 1966, to date the project has not been completed. Since the date of completion of the plaintiff’s general construction duties under its contract is the subject of the board’s second counterclaim, it is our view that determination of the Statute of Limitations issue, turning as it does upon the related question of the date of full completion of the project, should also await trial.' Damiani, J. P., Gibbons, Cohalan and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal by defendant Board of Education, Central School District, No. 2, Towns of Yorktown, New Castle and Cortlandt from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Slifkin, J.), dated November 23, 1979, which granted the motion of the additional defendant Emilio John Di Rienzo for summary judgment dismissing its third counterclaim insofar as asserted against him. Order reversed, with $50 costs and disbursements, and motion denied. The counterclaim in question asserts a cause of action to recover against an architect for breach of contract or for professional malpractice. Under either theory the board’s claim accrued on the date of completion of the project which was the subject of the architectural contract between the parties and the consequent termination of their professional relationship thereunder (Sosnow v Paul, 36 NY2d 780). In Sears, Roebuck & Co. v Eneo Assoc. (43 NY2d 389, 395) it was held that “claims by owners against architects arising out of the performance or nonperformance of obligations under contracts between them are governed by the six-year contract Statute of Limitations (CPLR 213, subd 2), except with respect to the issue of damages” (see, also, [877]*877Matter of Paver & Wildfoerster [Catholic High School Assn.], 38 NY2d 669). This record presents a vigorously disputed question of fact as to whether the board’s claim against the architect was interposed within six years of the date of completion of the project, the board contending that although begun in 1966, to date the project has not been completed. Since the date of completion of the plaintiff’s general construction duties under its contract is the subject of the board’s second counterclaim, it is our view that determination of the Statute of Limitations issue, turning as it does upon the related question of the date of full completion of the project, should also await trial.' Damiani, J. P., Gibbons, Cohalan and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.2d 876, 440 N.Y.S.2d 318, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14574, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/n-r-s-construction-corp-v-board-of-education-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack