Robert B. Samuels, Inc. v. CSG Construction Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Robert B. Samuels, Inc. v. CSG Construction Corp.

257 A.D.2d 474, 683 N.Y.S.2d 539, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 460

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

DecidedJanuary 19, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 257 A.D.2d 474 (Robert B. Samuels, Inc. v. CSG Construction 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

Robert B. Samuels, Inc. v. CSG Construction Corp., 257 A.D.2d 474, 683 N.Y.S.2d 539, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 460 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alfred Toker, J.H.O.), entered May 30, 1997, granting the motion of defendants James J. Varga and Jerry Friedman for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the one-year limitations period contained in Lien Law § 77 (2) had expired, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In light of plaintiff’s failure to adduce proof in evidentiary form sufficient to controvert defendant’s showing that the contracted for work was completed more than one year prior to the filing of the instant action, defendants’ motion for summary judgment was properly granted (see, Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065, 1067). Contrary to plaintiffs contention, the record affords no basis upon which to toll the running of the limitations period governing plaintiffs claims against defendants-respondents Varga and Friedman. Notwithstanding the alleged connection between Varga and Friedman and defendant CSC, an insolvent corporation, plaintiff has not presented any evidence warranting extension of the bankruptcy stay affecting proceedings against CSG, to cover and thus toll the running of the limitations period with respect to plaintiffs claims against CSG’s individual, solvent co-defendants, Varga and Friedman (see, CAE Indus. v Aerospace Holdings Co., 116 Bankr 31). Concur—Williams, J. P., Wallach, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alfred Toker, J.H.O.), entered May 30, 1997, granting the motion of defendants James J. Varga and Jerry Friedman for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the one-year limitations period contained in Lien Law § 77 (2) had expired, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In light of plaintiff’s failure to adduce proof in evidentiary form sufficient to controvert defendant’s showing that the contracted for work was completed more than one year prior to the filing of the instant action, defendants’ motion for summary judgment was properly granted (see, Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065, 1067). Contrary to plaintiffs contention, the record affords no basis upon which to toll the running of the limitations period governing plaintiffs claims against defendants-respondents Varga and Friedman. Notwithstanding the alleged connection between Varga and Friedman and defendant CSC, an insolvent corporation, plaintiff has not presented any evidence warranting extension of the bankruptcy stay affecting proceedings against CSG, to cover and thus toll the running of the limitations period with respect to plaintiffs claims against CSG’s individual, solvent co-defendants, Varga and Friedman (see, CAE Indus. v Aerospace Holdings Co., 116 Bankr 31). Concur—Williams, J. P., Wallach, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 A.D.2d 474, 683 N.Y.S.2d 539, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 460, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-b-samuels-inc-v-csg-construction-corp-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack