{"id":675,"date":"2024-08-25T21:49:23","date_gmt":"2024-08-26T01:49:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/?p=675"},"modified":"2024-08-25T21:49:23","modified_gmt":"2024-08-26T01:49:23","slug":"new-york-ny-court-dismisses-construction-defect-case-over-statute-of-limitations","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/2024\/08\/25\/new-york-ny-court-dismisses-construction-defect-case-over-statute-of-limitations\/","title":{"rendered":"New York NY Court Dismisses Construction Defect Case Over Statute of Limitations"},"content":{"rendered":"

The New York Appellate Division, Second Department, recently affirmed the dismissal of a breach of contract lawsuit related to alleged construction defects.[1]<\/a> The plaintiff claimed that the defendant had breached their remodeling contract by improperly installing flooring in the plaintiff\u2019s basement. However, the appellate court affirmed the lower court\u2019s ruling that the plaintiff\u2019s claim was barred by the statute of limitations.<\/p>\n

Under New York law, breach of contract claims are subject to a six-year statute of limitations.[2]<\/a> This limitations period begins to run upon the contractor\u2019s completion of the work. In this case, the court determined that the claim accrued on May 26, 2015, the date on which the plaintiff made the final payment under the contract, with no subsequent work performed. The plaintiff filed the lawsuit on January 21, 2022, well beyond the six-year statutory period.<\/p>\n

The court also considered the potential tolling of the statute of limitations due to executive orders issued during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, even with these tolling provisions, the court found the plaintiff’s action untimely. Consequently, the lower court’s dismissal of the complaint was upheld on appeal.<\/p>\n

In affirming the lower court\u2019s decision, the Appellate Division emphasized that the burden rests with the defendant to establish that the statute of limitations has expired. Once this burden is met, the plaintiff must then demonstrate a factual basis for tolling the statute of limitations or show that the claim was filed within the statutory period. In this case, the plaintiff failed to present a factual issue that could preclude dismissal, resulting in the affirmation of the dismissal the complaint.<\/p>\n

The ruling underscores the critical importance of understanding and adhering to the statute of limitations in construction-related disputes. It also highlights the necessity for plaintiffs to act promptly when they believe they have a claim, as delays can easily result in losing the right to sue.<\/p>\n

Jose A. Aquino<\/a>\u00a0(@JoseAquinoEsq<\/a> on X) is a special counsel in the New York office of Duane Morris LLP, where he is a member of the Construction Group<\/a> and of the Cuba Business Group<\/a>.\u00a0 Mr. Aquino focuses his practice on construction law, lien law and government procurement law. This blog is prepared and published for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author\u2019s law firm or its individual attorneys.<\/i><\/p>\n

[1]<\/a> Hillaire v. Jose A. Torres<\/em>, ___ N.Y.S.3d ___, 2024 WL 3281628 (2d Dep\u2019t 2024).<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> N.Y. C.P.L.R. \u00a7 213(2)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The New York Appellate Division, Second Department, recently affirmed the dismissal of a breach of contract lawsuit related to alleged construction defects.[1] The plaintiff claimed that the defendant had breached their remodeling contract by improperly installing flooring in the plaintiff\u2019s basement. However, the appellate court affirmed the lower court\u2019s ruling that the plaintiff\u2019s claim was … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “New York NY Court Dismisses Construction Defect Case Over Statute of Limitations”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":66,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[88,593],"ppma_author":[699],"class_list":["post-675","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general","tag-construction-law","tag-jose-a-aquino"],"authors":[{"term_id":699,"user_id":66,"is_guest":0,"slug":"jaaquino","display_name":"Jose A. Aquino","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/6\/2014\/07\/aquinojose-125x150.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/675","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/66"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=675"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/675\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=675"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=675"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=675"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=675"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}