Summary
dismissing plaintiff's claim due to its "negligent loss of a key piece of evidence which defendants never had an opportunity to examine"
Summary of this case from Squitieri v. City of New YorkOpinion
November 21, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.).
The IAS Court properly concluded that plaintiff's action is time-barred since it was commenced more than six years after the alleged improper installation of an air conditioning system and related piping ( Cabrini Med. Ctr. v Desina, 64 N.Y.2d 1059, 1061). That defendant returned to the premises to perform repair work and inspections is not a basis for extending the Statute of Limitations as the complaint is limited to claims of negligent installation. Nor do these facts demonstrate a continuing professional relationship between plaintiff and defendant as would toll the Statute of Limitations ( supra, at 1062).
Although we dismiss defendant and third-party plaintiff's cross appeal, we find that the arguments raised therein would provide a further ground for affirmance. Dismissal of the amended complaint is also warranted because of plaintiff's negligent loss of a key piece of evidence which defendants never had an opportunity to examine ( see, Interested Underwriters at Lloyd's v Rheem Mfg. Co., NYLJ, May 12, 1994, at 28, col 4).
Plaintiff's motion for an order pursuant to 22 NYCRR 600.11 (d) compelling defendant to share half the expense of the record on appeal is granted.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Ellerin, Rubin, Asch and Nardelli, JJ.