Legal Opinion
Williamsville Central School District v. Cannon Partnership
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided November 18, 1992PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Defendant architects contend that their motion to dismiss the complaint should have been granted because the action was *1012started more than six years after the completion of the construction work and the issuance of a certificate of completion. The Statute of Limitations governing a cause of action by an owner against an architect begins to run upon the termination of the relationship between the architect and the owner (Sosnow v Paul, 43 AD2d 978, affd on mem at App Div 36 NY2d 780). Where the contract requires the architect to conduct…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Sosnow v. PaulNew York Court of Appeals · 1975
- Sosnow v. PaulAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1974
- Board of Education of Tri-Valley Central School District at Grahamsville v. Celotex Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1982
- BD. OF EDUC. OF TRI-VALLEY CENT. SCH. DIST. AT GRAHAMSVILLE v. Celotex Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1982
3Cited by2 opinions
- In re the Arbitration Between Oriskany Central School District & Edmund J. Booth Architects, A.I.A.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
- Board of Education of Webb Union Free School District v. Garland Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993