Robb v. Low

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Robb v. Low

99 A.D.3d 614, 952 N.Y.2d 872

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

DecidedOctober 25, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 99 A.D.3d 614 (Robb v. Low) 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

Robb v. Low, 99 A.D.3d 614, 952 N.Y.2d 872 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

In this action arising out of the parties’ co-ownership of a residential building jointly owned by them as tenants in common, the motion court properly determined that the statute of limitations for breach of the co-ownership agreement began to run when plaintiff advanced payments to pay for defendant’s share of the expenses related to the property. Pursuant to the agreement, the party making such advances is entitled to recover from the defaulting party upon demand. Thus, plaintiffs claim accrued at the time he could have demanded repayment, i.e., when defendant breached the contract by failing to make his share of the expenses and plaintiff made the necessary advances (see Sutton v Burdick, 75 AD3d 884 [3d Dept 2010], lv dismissed 15 NY3d 874 [2010]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Gonzalez, PJ., Moskowitz, Acosta, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

In this action arising out of the parties’ co-ownership of a residential building jointly owned by them as tenants in common, the motion court properly determined that the statute of limitations for breach of the co-ownership agreement began to run when plaintiff advanced payments to pay for defendant’s share of the expenses related to the property. Pursuant to the agreement, the party making such advances is entitled to recover from the defaulting party upon demand. Thus, plaintiffs claim accrued at the time he could have demanded repayment, i.e., when defendant breached the contract by failing to make his share of the expenses and plaintiff made the necessary advances (see Sutton v Burdick, 75 AD3d 884 [3d Dept 2010], lv dismissed 15 NY3d 874 [2010]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Gonzalez, PJ., Moskowitz, Acosta, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 A.D.3d 614, 952 N.Y.2d 872, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robb-v-low-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack