Union Fence Co. v. Manshul Construction Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Union Fence Co. v. Manshul Construction Corp.

128 A.D.2d 608, 513 N.Y.S.2d 20, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44299

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

DecidedMarch 9, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 128 A.D.2d 608 (Union Fence Co. v. Manshul 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

Union Fence Co. v. Manshul Construction Corp., 128 A.D.2d 608, 513 N.Y.S.2d 20, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44299 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover the balance allegedly due under a contract, (1) the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Miller, J.), dated December 6, 1985, as denied the plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment, and (2) the defendant Manshul Construction Corporation cross-appeals from so much of the same order as denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

[609]*609Special Term properly denied summary judgment to the defendant Manshul Construction Corp. (hereinafter Manshul) on its Statute of Limitations defense. The agreement between Manshul and the plaintiff provided for a one-year contract limitation on claims arising under the contract. The limitations period commenced to run on the date the plaintiffs work was accepted by the City of New York, the "owner” of the swimming pool which the plaintiff, a subcontractor, was renovating. Manshul failed to establish the date on which the plaintiff’s work was accepted by the city and therefore failed to establish that this action is time barred as a matter of law (see, Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065). We also concur with Special Term’s determination that there are issues of fact which preclude a grant of summary judgment to the plaintiff. Niehoff, J. P., Lawrence, Weinstein and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover the balance allegedly due under a contract, (1) the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Miller, J.), dated December 6, 1985, as denied the plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment, and (2) the defendant Manshul Construction Corporation cross-appeals from so much of the same order as denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

[609]*609Special Term properly denied summary judgment to the defendant Manshul Construction Corp. (hereinafter Manshul) on its Statute of Limitations defense. The agreement between Manshul and the plaintiff provided for a one-year contract limitation on claims arising under the contract. The limitations period commenced to run on the date the plaintiffs work was accepted by the City of New York, the "owner” of the swimming pool which the plaintiff, a subcontractor, was renovating. Manshul failed to establish the date on which the plaintiff’s work was accepted by the city and therefore failed to establish that this action is time barred as a matter of law (see, Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065). We also concur with Special Term’s determination that there are issues of fact which preclude a grant of summary judgment to the plaintiff. Niehoff, J. P., Lawrence, Weinstein and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 A.D.2d 608, 513 N.Y.S.2d 20, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44299, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/union-fence-co-v-manshul-construction-corp-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack