Squeri v. Moriches Associates, Inc.

307 A.D.2d 260, 761 N.Y.S.2d 869
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 7, 2003
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 307 A.D.2d 260 (Squeri v. Moriches Associates, Inc.) 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
Squeri v. Moriches Associates, Inc., 307 A.D.2d 260, 761 N.Y.S.2d 869 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), dated June 20, 2002, as denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the second cause of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiffs, owners of condominium units in a complex lo[261]*261cated in Manorville, seek, inter alia, damages for the defendants’ alleged breach of an agreement dated November 7, 1985. The defendants claim that the plaintiffs’ second cause of action is time-barred.

Since the second cause of action is based on breach of contract, it is governed by the six-year statute of limitations applicable to contract actions (see CPLR 213 [2]). “The general rule applicable to contract actions is that a six-year Statute of Limitations begins to run when a contract is breached or when one party omits the performance of a contractual obligation” (Airco Alloys Div. v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 76 AD2d 68, 80 [1980]). Here, the covenant which was allegedly breached was to become effective on the first day of April following the “release of the 125th unit.” It was not until this date that the plaintiffs’ right to relief accrued and they first became entitled to maintain this action. Since it is not clear when the “release of the 125th unit” occurred, the defendants did not make out a prima facie case for summary judgment, and accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied their motion. Feuerstein, J.P., Schmidt, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Calltrol Corp. v. DialConnection, LLC
New York Supreme Court, 2016
QK Healthcare, Inc. v. InSource, Inc.
108 A.D.3d 56 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Beller v. William Penn Life Insurance of New York
8 A.D.3d 310 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
307 A.D.2d 260, 761 N.Y.S.2d 869, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/squeri-v-moriches-associates-inc-nyappdiv-2003.