Legal Opinion

Mendelsohn v. City of New York (19th Precinct)

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

Decided November 17, 2011PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The court correctly determined that, pursuant to CPLR 213 (2), this action for breach of a construction contract had to be commenced within six years of substantial completion of the work and was time-barred (see Phillips Constr. Co. v City of New York, 61 NY2d 949, 951 [1984]; 645 First Ave. Manhattan Co. v Silhouette Dry wall Sys., 212 AD2d 394 [1995]). The City submitted a letter dated May 21, 1992 showing that the work was substantially complete on April 9, 1992, more than six years before plaintiff commenced this action.

Plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact as to when the work was…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Phillips Construction Co. v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1984
  2. 645 First Avenue Manhattan Co. v. Silhouette Drywall Systems, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. ACE Securities Corp. v. DB Structured Products, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 2013
  2. Leitner v. 304 Associates, LLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
  3. Nexbank, SSB v. SofferAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016
  4. Lantern Endowment Partners, LP v. Bluefin Servicing Ltd.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2021
  5. Lantern Endowment Partners, LP v. Bluefin Servicing Ltd.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2021

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API